The Scottish Hate Crime Law Empowers The State To Lock You Up At Will

FT  |  Author JK Rowling has attacked Humza Yousaf, calling Scotland’s first minister “bumbling and illiberal” and stoking a row over the country’s contentious new hate crime law. 

The creator of the Harry Potter franchise was responding to criticism from Yousaf on Thursday that posts she had made on X earlier in the week identifying transgender women as men were “offensive and upsetting”. Rowling posted on X: “Most of Scotland is upset and offended by Yousaf’s bumbling incompetence and illiberal authoritarianism, but we aren’t lobbying to have him locked up for it.” 

Rowling, a leading gender-critical feminist, used her social media profile to test whether the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act would criminalise promoting the importance of biological sex over gender identity. The legislation, which came into effect on Monday, has triggered a row between the author and lawmakers, and thrust culture wars into the forefront of Scottish politics. 

Yousaf in an interview with the BBC hit out at the author’s provocative posts on social media, insisting the law had a high threshold for criminality and was not intended to respond to those who are “upset or insulted”. The legal difficulties in balancing the protection of vulnerable communities with the right to free speech have opened up a new line of attack for the opponents of the Scottish National party and Green coalition, with them characterising the legislation as an example of unworkable progressive policymaking. It comes as opinion polls fail to provide a clear picture of voting intentions ahead of the general election later this year. 

 A YouGov poll this week predicted a UK landslide for Labour in which it would become the largest party in Scotland, winning 28 seats north of the border to the SNP’s 19. A Survation poll last week forecast that the SNP would hold 41 seats to Labour’s 14. The act widens the existing crime of stirring up racial hatred to include other protected characteristics, such as sexuality, gender and disability, with the threat of jail terms of seven years. 

Thousands of complaints have reportedly been made to the police about Rowling’s posts, as well as about a speech Yousaf gave to parliament in 2020 during which he complained about the number of senior positions of authority held by white people. Police Scotland, which has yet to announce the number of allegations of hate crimes it has received, earlier this week decided Rowling’s posts, in which she invited the police to arrest her, were not criminal. The force also decided against logging Rowling’s posts and Yousaf’s speech as “non-crime hate incidents”. 

The police, who note such incidents when allegations do not breach the threshold of criminality, use these records to monitor trends, but opponents say this process has a chilling effect on free speech. The police decision sparked an angry response from Murdo Fraser, a Conservative MSP, whose post last year on social media saying identifying as non-binary was as valid as “choosing to identify as a cat” did get logged. Fraser on Wednesday accused Police Scotland of political bias. “They have taken a different approach to comments made by the SNP first minister to those made by an opposition politician,” he said. “It is hard not to conclude that Police Scotland has been captured by the SNP policy agenda.”

Evil Feminization of the West Won't Stop Short Of An Inquisition Level Bloodbath...,

racket  |  Hopkins reached out to me after listening in disgust to the Murthy v. Missouri Supreme Court hearing Monday. Standing was a big issue: our government said plaintiffs like Drs. Jay Bhattacharya and Aaron Kheriaty lacked definite proof that the government was responsible for suppressing their speech. No such issue exists in CJ’s case, as you can see.

Hopkins also wanted Americans who might be up in arms about the specter of legalized censorship in their own country to see that the phenomenon has also spread to virtually every Western democracy, often in more extreme forms than we’ve seen so far in the United States.

CJ’s unique insight involves his ludicrous German case, which as you’ll read in the Q&A below has taken bizarre turns since we last checked and will now go to trial yet again. As an expat following the American situation from afar, he’s seen how the authoritarian tide is rising in similar or worse ways all around the globe. 

Hopkins is facing the business end of the German version, among the worst. As detailed last June, he was charged with “disseminating propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization.” The crime? Using a barely detectible Swastika in the cover image of his book, The Rise of the New Normal Reich. Far from “furthering the aims” of Nazism, he was criticizing them by comparing Nazi methods and laws to those of modern health authorities. The offending image:

Hopkins went to trial in January and delivered an impassioned plea to the court. “Every journalist that has covered my case, everyone in this courtroom, understands what this prosecution is actually about,” he said. “It has nothing to do with punishing people who actually disseminate pro-Nazi propaganda. It is about punishing dissent, and making an example of dissidents in order to intimidate others into silence.”

Though the judge was clearly not a fan of Hopkins — a courtroom account by Aya Velázquez, which I recommend reading, described how the judge said CJ’s statements were “ideological drivel,” just “not punishable by law” — he won on the law.

After acquittal, he was made aware that technically the case wasn’t over, because thanks to a quirk of German jurisprudence, the prosecutor had a week to file an appeal. Hopkins was unconcerned. “I doubt he will [re-file]. He made a total fool of himself in front of a large audience yesterday,” he wrote. “I can’t imagine that he will want to do that again.”

Bzzt! Wrong. The prosecutor re-filed charges. The prosecutorial theory in the Hopkins case was based on a bizarre interpretation of hate crime, essentially asserting that if you have to think about an image to realize it’s satire, it can’t be allowed. If that idea spreads, it would make comedy or even sharp commentary impossible. This is why his indictment, and the similar investigation of Roger Waters, are really serious moments. Not to be heavy-handed, but eliminating the loophole for satire or mockery is exactly what Waters meant by “Another Brick in the Wall.” Before you know it, it’ll be toohigh to see over.

 

Too Many Feminized Oligarchs In The 4th Reich

unherd  |  The US Supreme Court has been hearing arguments today on what could be one of the most consequential rulings related to free speech in decades. The case, Murthy v. Missouri, revolves around efforts by US Government agencies, including the CDC and the FBI, to influence the narrative around major events, such as Covid-19, by leaning on social media platforms to censor posts, topics and accounts.

The case — brought by two states, Missouri and Louisiana, as well as five individuals against the federal government — was in part animated by Elon Musk’s decision to publish the Twitter Files, a trove of emails, text and other company correspondence which showed the extent to which Government agencies ranging from the CDC to the CIA were in contact with managers at social media platforms over issues such as claims about the vaccine and the effectiveness of lockdowns.

The case could not be more significant for American society as far as freedom of speech is concerned. The reason is that at the heart of the case is what constitutes disinformation and what steps governments can take to combat it. In this case, many of the claims censored by social media companies at the behest of the Government turned out to be true. This includes widespread censorship of social media posts claiming that the Covid-19 vaccines carry health risks and that the lockdowns were not only ineffective but also damaging.

Republicans have alleged that the same dynamic was at play when social media giants censored the New York Post’s reporting on the now infamous Hunter Biden laptop story, arguing that deep state actors leant on the platform to block the coverage. Twitter executives involved in the decisions denied this, with one of them, Yoel Roth, saying “I believe Twitter erred in this case because we wanted to avoid repeating the mistakes of 2016.”

The irony, of course, is that “the mistakes of 2016” refers to the widespread allegations that Trump colluded with the Russian government to sway that year’s election, including on Facebook. None of these claims have been proved true — and some, like the effect of “fake news” on the election, have been debunked.

Nevertheless, the “Russiagate” narrative — itself one of the most sweeping disinformation campaigns of recent years — took a firm hold in American public life, in large part thanks to claims of disinformation that lay at the heart of the campaign.

This speaks to the central challenge of the case: while the Government’s critics argue that disinformation is a cudgel to silence dissent, proponents argue that a core Government function is to police information, especially during times of emergency.

Oligarchs Unaccustomed To Online Rough And Tumble Despise Free Speech

endoftheamericandream  |  The freedom to say whatever we want is one of the most fundamental rights in a free society.  If we are not free to speak up, it is is just a matter of time before all of our other rights are taken away as well.  So it should deeply alarm all of us that free speech is under attack like never before.  Much of the population has become convinced that “hate speech” is a special class of speech that does not deserve protection.  Of course in practice “hate speech” ends up being whatever forms of expression that the leftist elite hate.  That is why “hate speech” laws are always written so vaguely.  That way they can be used to go after whoever the leftist elite feel like going after at the time. 

It is not always easy to have a society where people are allowed to say whatever they want.  People say things all the time that deeply, deeply offend me.  And there are some that have said things about me that are tremendously hateful and untrue.

But if we are going to have a free society, people have got to be free to say whatever they want.  So we should never support freedom of speech being taken away from anyone, because once we start going down that slippery slope it is just a matter of time before they come after our freedom to say what we want.

That is why what is happening in the state of Washington is so alarming.  A new law would allow private individuals to collect up to $2,000 every time they report someone to the new “hate crimes and bias incidents hotline”…

Senate Bill 5427, after it is signed into law, would allow private individuals (note: this is not limited to American citizens) to report “bias incidents*” (see definition below) to the State Attorney General’s Office, with the possibility of receiving up to $2,000 of taxpayers money for this noncriminal incident. The bill was very clear: this is a non-crime which they will then forward to local law enforcement to investigate. What’s to investigate? No crime, no investigation.

The Progressives & Marxists who sponsored this bill say it is intended to help “victims of hate crimes” before a crime even happens. Say what? In reality, SB 5427 would create a “tattletale hotline,” undermine legitimate criminal investigations, and freeze, not just chill, speech & the press in Washington State. People will stop talking to others and writing to others except very close friends & relatives, for fear a greedy “Karen” will report them to Washington’s version of the Gestapo.

This is crazy.

Do we live in East Germany now?

It has been pointed out that those that use social media could make a fortune reporting their fellow citizens to the new “tattletale hotline”…

“Spend five minutes on Twitter on any given day and I assure someone would say something offensive under this law that we could call a ‘hate crime’ and collect $2,000 from the attorney general,” Conservative Ladies of Washington Founder and President Julie Barrett told the Senate Ways and Means Committee at a Feb. 20 public hearing. “It potentially target[s] people for actions they don’t like, but are not actually hate crimes. In collaboration with bills like HB 1333, this would create sort of a ‘tattletale hotline’ to report people one doesn’t agree with or doesn’t like.”

Of course we have seen similar efforts in other states.

In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul intends to massively expand the hate crime laws in her state…

Governor Kathy Hochul today highlighted her groundbreaking State of the State proposal to expand the list of charges eligible to be prosecuted as hate crimes and announced grant funding to strengthen safety and security measures at nonprofit, community-based organizations at risk of hate crimes or attacks because of their ideology, beliefs, or mission.

“The rising tide of hate is abhorrent and unacceptable – and I’m committed to doing everything in my power to keep New Yorkers safe,” Governor Hochul said. “Since the despicable Hamas attacks of October 7, there has been a disturbing rise in hate crimes against Jewish and Muslim New Yorkers. In recent years we’ve seen hate-fueled violence targeting Black residents of Buffalo and disturbing harassment of AAPI and LGBTQ+ individuals on the streets of New York City. We will never rest until all New Yorkers feel safe, regardless of who they are, who they love, or how they worship.”

And in Michigan, last year a bill was introduced that would have made it a felony if someone felt “terrorized, frightened, or threatened” by your words…

Al Gore Ithms...,

AL GORE - At COP28.

Listen carefully. He says Democracy is under threat because citizens are no longer all getting the same print news (propaganda)

Algorithms (that governments can’t control) are threatening democracy.

It’s like he thinks we are stupid or insane … oh pic.twitter.com/aQe41iOhNY

— Elander & the News (@ElanderNews) December 7, 2023

modernity  |  Al Gore says that people having access to information outside of mainstream media sources is a threat to “democracy” and that social media algorithms “ought to be banned.”

Yes, really.

Gore made the comments during an appearance at the Cop28 climate change hysteria conference in Dubai.

Gore whined that social media had “disrupted the balances that used to exist that made representative democracy work much better.”

The former Vice President said that functioning democracy relied on a “shared base of knowledge that serves as a basis for reasoning together collectively” but that “social media that is dominated by algorithms” upsets this balance.

According to Gore, people are being pulled down “rabbit holes” by algorithms that are “the digital equivalent of AR-15s – they ought to be banned, they really ought to be banned!”

Gore claimed, “It’s an abuse of the public forum” and that people were being sucked into echo chambers.

“If you spend too much time in the echo chamber, what’s weaponized is another form of AI, not artificial intelligence, artificial insanity! I’m serious!” he added.

Apparently, the only echo chamber that should be allowed to exist is Gore’s own rabbit hole, wherein the earth is constantly on the brink of destruction thanks to people not obeying his technocratic mandates.

Perhaps Gore is unhappy at his own misinformation being fact checked by individuals who have access to information not produced by corporate media sources that are friendly to him.

Gore infamously predicted that the north polar ice cap would be “ice free” within 5 to 7 years.

 

14 State AG's Sign Letter Threatening Media Outlets With Prosecution For Reporting On Hamas

foxnews  |  More than a dozen state attorneys general signed a letter to media outlets such as the New York Times and Reuters, putting them "on notice" that providing material support to terrorist organizations such as Hamas is illegal, Fox News Digital exclusively learned. 

"We will continue to follow your reporting to ensure that your organizations do not violate any federal or State laws by giving material support to terrorists abroad. Now your organizations are on notice. Follow the law," 14 state attorneys general stated in a letter to the chiefs of CNN, The New York Times, Reuters and The Associated Press on Monday afternoon. 

Republican Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird spearheaded the letter, which detailed concerns that journalists embedded with Hamas may actually have deep connections with the terrorist organization "and may have participated in the October 7 attack." 

"Reporting credibly alleges that some of the individuals that your outlets hire have deep and troubling ties to Hamas—and may have participated in the October 7 attack. In the wake of those alarming reports, some of you have cut ties with these so-called journalists whose connections to terror groups have become too obvious to hide. Good. But one factor in determining whether an organization has provided material support for terrorism is that it be ‘knowing,’" the letter states. 

The attorneys general said the four outlets have a responsibility to fully vet potential hires and ensure they have no connections to terrorist organizations before putting them on the payroll and embedding them during armed conflicts. 

"If your outlet’s current hiring practices led you to give material support to terrorists, you must change these policies going forward. Otherwise, we must assume any future support of terrorist organizations by your stringers, correspondents, contractors, and similar employees is knowing behavior," they wrote. 

The state AGs pointed to a recent letter sent by a bipartisan group of lawmakers to Reuters asking "how its journalist knew to be available for the October 7 attack," and called on the outlet to address whether it had prior knowledge of the attack or if one of the organization’s journalists had been in contact with Hamas before the attack. 

The letter went on to argue that the issue of providing material support to terrorist organizations is not new, pointing to a watchdog group telling the AP five years ago that "one of its journalists worked for the Hamas-affiliated Quds TV." While The New York Times, the AGs continued, published an op-ed in 2020 penned by Taliban deputy leader Sirajuddin Haqqani. 

"Mr. Haqqani himself is on the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control Sanctions List. Did the Times pay for that piece? If so, whom did it pay? Was that payment consistent with federal and State laws? These questions are still unanswered," the letter stated.

Elon Musk Comes To Blows With Cancel Censorship

zerohedge  |  Media Matters has opted for new tactics in its campaign to drive advertisers from X. Media Matters has manipulated the algorithms governing the user experience on X to bypass safeguards and create images of X’s largest advertisers’ paid posts adjacent to racist, incendiary content, leaving the false impression that these pairings are anything but what they actually are: manufactured, inorganic, and extraordinarily rare.

Media Matters executed this plot in multiple steps, as X’s internal investigations have revealed.

First, Media Matters  accessed accounts that had been active for at least 30 days, bypassing X’s ad filter for new users. Media Matters then exclusively followed a small subset of users consisting entirely of accounts in one of two categories: those known to produce extreme, fringe content, and accounts owned by X’s big-name advertisers. The end result was a feed precision-designed by Media Matters for a single purpose: to produce side-by-side ad/content placements that it could screenshot in an effort to alienate advertisers.

But this activity still was not enough to create the pairings of advertisements and content that Media Matters aimed to produce.

Media Matters therefore resorted to endlessly scrolling and refreshing its unrepresentative, hand-selected feed, generating between 13 and 15 times more advertisements per hour than viewed by the average X user repeating this inauthentic activity until it finally received pages containing the result it wanted: controversial content next to X’s largest advertisers’ paid posts.

Media Matters omitted mentioning any of this in a report published on November 16, 2023 that displayed instances Media Matters “found” on X of advertisers’ paid posts featured next to Neo-Nazi and white-nationalist content. Nor did Media Matters otherwise provide any context regarding the forced, inauthentic nature and extraordinary rarity of these pairings.

However, relying on the specious narrative propagated by Media Matters, the advertisers targeted took these pairings to be anything but rare and inorganic, with all but one of the companies featured in the Media Matters piece withdrawing all ads from X, including Apple, Comcast, NBCUniversal, and IBM—some of X’s largest advertisers. Indeed, in pulling all advertising from X in response to this intentionally deceptive report, IBM called the pairings an “entirely unacceptable situation.” Only Oracle did not withdraw its ads.

The truth bore no resemblance to Media Matters’ narrative. In fact, IBM’s, Comcast’s, and Oracle’s paid posts appeared alongside the fringe content cited by Media Matters for only one viewer (out of more than 500 million) on all of X: Media Matters. Not a single authentic user of the X platform saw IBM ’s, Comcast’s, or Oracle’s ads next to that content, which Media Matters achieved only through its manipulation of X’s algorithms as described above. And in Apple’s case, only two out of more than 500  million active users saw its ad appear alongside the fringe content cited in the article—at least one of which was Media Matters.

Media Matters could have produced a fair, accurate account of users’ interactions with advertisements on X via basic reporting: following real users, documenting the actual, organic production of content and advertisement pairings. Had it done so, however, it would not have produced the outcome Media Matters so desperately desired, which was to tarnish X’s reputation by associating it with racist content. So instead, Media Matters chose to maliciously misrepresent the X experience with the intention of harming X and its business.

Further, X CEO Linda Yaccarino - who has reportedly been under pressure all day by various ad companies to resign - defended the company in a statement on Monday.

"If you know me, you know I'm committed to truth and fairness," she posted.

"Here's the truth. Not a single authentic user on X saw IBM's, Comcast's, or Oracle's ads next to the content in Media Matters' article. Only 2 users saw Apple's ad next to the content, at least one of which was Media Matters. Data wins over manipulation or allegations. Don't be manipulated. Stand with X."

Public's Michael Shellenberger noted that:

"Despite the lack of verified evidence behind Media Matters’ claims, its tactics are highly effective."

Sllenberger concluded, by asking on X:

Why is Media Matters leading a disinformation campaign and advertiser boycott against Elon Musk’s X?

Who is Media Matters, exactly?

And what’s its real agenda?

...before going into detail on Substack about why Media Matters is a Democratic Party front-Group:

The attacks on X make clear that the real concern of Democratic Party elites is their lack of control over the public conversation.

From 1996 to 2016, Democrats felt they controlled the elite policy and political conversation through the news media. After that appeared to fall apart in 2016, and as Democrats, including Podesta, blamed social media for Clinton’s loss, they stepped up their effort to take control over Twitter and Facebook, which they did, demanding and winning the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop, and deplatforming Trump.

The strategy of Democratic Party leaders, including Clinton, Podesta, and Obama, has been, since 2016, to label Trump-supporting Republicans as racists, Nazis, and antisemites. The attacks on Elon Musk’s X must be taken in this context.

The real agenda behind the Media Matters attack on X is the same as the one behind the Democrats’ attack on Trump and the Republicans. Democrats want to control the conversation.

Without censorship, voters can see that the border is a disaster, the Ukraine war was a tragic failure, and that Democrats have been censoring them.

...

...we must have greater control over the content we receive through social media platforms.

The U.K. KARENWAFFEN Caroline Dinenage And Mark Lancaster

thegrayzone  |   Caroline Dinenage served as the UK government’s Digital and Culture minister from February 2020 to September 2021, making her de facto chief of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). 

In this capacity, she was personally responsible for overseeing construction of the repressive, World Economic Forum-endorsed Online Safety Bill, which has been criticized by rights groups for threatening the rights to free expression, and privacy. For her leading role in crafting the speech-muzzling bill, Dinenage was honored by Princess Royal with the title of Dame Commander of the British Empire.

Moreover, during this period, the DCMS was home to the shadowy, intelligence official-run Counter-Disinformation Unit (CDU), which policed “COVID-19 disinformation narratives” online.

Investigations by the civil liberties organization Big Brother Watch have revealed that instead of suppressing content that posed risks to public health, the CDU was preoccupied with censoring and deplatforming reasonable online criticisms of the British government’s Covid-19 response, including opposition to lockdowns and vaccine passports. 

According to an official fact sheet, the CDU’s focus turned to the Ukraine proxy war in 2022, and particularly to targeting content suggesting “the Bucha massacre and the bombing of the maternity hospital in Mariupol, Ukraine, were both hoaxes.”

Dinenage’s husband is Mark Lancaster, a fellow information warrior dedicated to advancing the propaganda goals of the British government. Lancaster reportedly left his wife and four-month-old daughter in 2013 when he began dating Dinenage, who was herself married at the time to a British Naval officer.

A former Conservative MP and Armed Forces minister, Lancaster helped lead London’s blitz on pandemic dissent as deputy commander of the British Army’s 77th Brigade between June 2018 and July 2022.

Specialized in “behaviour and attitudinal change,” the 77th Brigade maintains a vast militia of real, fake, and automated social media accounts to disseminate and amplify pro-state messaging, and discredit domestic and foreign enemies.

During the pandemic, the 77th Brigade targeted people within Britain and across the West with advanced psychological manipulation strategies honed on battlefields against enemy militaries. The online profile of a 77th Brigade veteran notes they were deployed straight from a tour of the Middle East – where they “successfully implemented behavioral change strategies against ISIS” – to “countering dis- and misinformation during the Covid-19 crisis.”

However, in January, an ex-Brigade whistleblower revealed how the Ministry of Defence and RRU routinely circumvented British law to advance the government’s crusade against pandemic dissent:

“To skirt the legal difficulties of a military unit monitoring domestic dissent, the view was that unless a profile explicitly stated their real name and nationality, they could be a foreign agent and were fair game. But it is quite obvious that our activities resulted in the monitoring of the UK population…These posts did not contain information that was untrue or coordinated [emphasis added].”

As The Grayzone revealed in June 2023, British journalist Paul Mason had attempted to submit a “formal complaint” about The Grayzone to DCMS, believing it would trigger a government investigation into this outlet’s “funding and activities,” and ultimately its deplatforming. Mason’s handler, a British intelligence agent named Andy Pryce, boasted in leaked emails of his personal role in YouTube’s banning of “Russian stuff” in Britain. The CDU has been confirmed as the government body responsible for these censorship demands.

Now, this shadowy, intelligence-linked entity appears to be the spearhead of the campaign to silence Russell Brand.

The Blob REALLY Doesn't Want The American People To Hear Putin's Voice

azerbaycan24  |   The former Fox News host has questioned why ‘you’re not allowed to hear’ the Russian president’s voice Former Fox News television personality Tucker Carlson speaks to guests at the Family Leadership Summit on July 14, 2023 in Des Moines, Iowa

Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has alleged in a recent interview that unnamed figures in Washington obstructed his attempts to interview Russian president Vladimir Putin.

“I tried to interview Vladimir Putin, and the US government stopped me,” Carlson claimed in an interview with Swiss publication Die Weltwoche published on Thursday. He also explained that he felt let down by the lack of support for his situation that he says he received from US news media.

He said: “I don’t think there was anybody who said ‘wait a second. I may not like this guy but he has a right to interview anyone he wants, and we have a right to hear what Putin says’.” The 54-year-old added: “You’re not allowed to hear Putin’s voice. Because why? There was no vote on it. No one asked me.”

The often-controversial media personality didn’t elaborate on the circumstances under which he says there was government intrusion into his plans to interview Putin but it appeared to suggest that it was the current Biden administration which was behind the meddling. Carlson also didn’t mention when the interview with the Russian leader was supposed to take place.

Tucker Carlson blasts ‘creep’ US ambassador

“I’m an American citizen,” Carlson told Die Weltwoche. “I’m a much more loyal American than, say, Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, who didn’t even grow up in this country; she grew up in Canada. And they’re telling me what it is to be a loyal American?”

Carlson –previously Fox News’ biggest star– parted ways with the broadcaster in April shortly after the news network settled for $787.5 million a lawsuit with voting-machine company Dominion Voting Systems. Fox News had regularly discussed claims on some of its shows that Dominion’s machines were involved in ‘rigging’ the 2020 US presidential election.

Carlson’s show Tucker Carlson Tonight, during which he frequently discussed issues like gender, race, sexuality and ‘woke’ ideology, was specifically referenced in the Dominion lawsuit.

Since leaving Fox News, Carlson has broadcast abridged versions of his news show on X (formerly Twitter) which regularly draw tens of millions of views.

Meanwhile, Russia TV news channel Rossiya 24 has aired a teaser trailer for a weekend show it says is to be hosted by Carlson. The promo was first broadcast earlier this month and again on September 22 along with the words “at the weekend.” It adds that the “high-profile American presenter is moving to another level. Here.”

Rossiya 24 didn’t state when the show will debut or if it will be original content or translated versions of Carlson’s X broadcasts. (RT)

 

 

 

Rupert Murdoch Launched The Hit On Russell Brand

CTH  |   The Sunday Times, a Rupert Murdoch publication in the U.K, published a hit piece against Russell Brand accusing him of rape and sexual assault 20-years ago.  It did not take long before the accusations triggered the cancel culture and YouTube demonetized the actor and pundit.  Russell Brand has vehemently denied the allegations.

However, in a remarkable escalation the U.K Parliament is now targeting Russell Brand.  The British government has sent a letter to U.S. social media companies, including video platform provider Rumble demanding they take action against Brand.  Not only is the British government targeting an individual and demanding action over an unproven allegation, but they are also sending a letter to the U.S. company demanding acquiescence to their censorship demand.

Standing solidly on the side of freedom, Rumble said no. However, now Rumble is the subject of a global smear campaign using a variety of media outlets and constructed controversies.  Today, Russell Brand responded to the overall effort by the British government.

Mayorkas Lawfare Censorship Advisory Board's Signatories To The Huntergate Laptop Coverup

dailycaller  |  Top Republican lawmakers requested information from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas regarding an agency group that will include former intelligence officials who signed a letter suggesting the Hunter Biden laptop was a “Russian information operation,” according to a copy of a Thursday letter first obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

DHS tapped former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan and former CIA Operations Officer Paul Kolbe, all of whom signed an October 2020 letter casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation, to join the Homeland Intelligence Experts Group. In response, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green and Republican Texas Rep. August Pfluger are demanding to know DHS’ selection process for the group’s members, according to a copy of the letter. 

The Hunter Biden laptop contents were authenticated by the Daily Caller News Foundation, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CBS News and other media outlets. No evidence currently exists to suggest the laptop was a Russian disinformation operation.

“Multiple members of this Homeland Intelligence Expert Group have shown an utter disregard for the truth, not to mention brazen political bias. Does Secretary Mayorkas really think appointing leading Russian-collusion hoaxers will increase trust in his department? Clearly, he doesn’t care,” Green said in a statement to the DCNF.

Both Clapper and Brennan have been previously criticized for misleading the American public. On multiple occasions, Clapper gave incorrect information to Congress.

Clapper gave “inconsistent testimony” about contacts he had with the media while in office, Republicans charged. Additionally, Brennan denied that CIA officials had hacked the computers of Senate Intelligence Committee staffers, a statement that was later proven false.

“James Clapper and John Brennan have no place in positions of power—much less on a board of so-called experts where they will surely continue to serve as partisan Democrat operatives disguised as national security officials. The Department of Homeland Security must dispense with its disinformation boards and expert groups and focus on the real national security issues facing our country—such as the thousands of illegal migrants crossing our southern border on a daily basis,” Pfluger, who serves as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence, said in a statement to the DCNF.

The group will meet four times per year to advise DHS on intelligence and national security efforts regarding issues such as “terrorism, fentanyl, transborder issues, and emerging technology,” DHS said.

DHS didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

 

 

Supreme Court Stays Appeals Court Ruling Against Biden Administration Censorship

PCR  |  The Nazi Biden Regime Takes Its Claim that it Has a Right to Impose Censorship on Media to Supreme Court

There is no doubt whatsoever that the Biden Regime is a Fascist Censor controlling information in the interest of its criminal agendas.  A Federal Appeals Court spelled out the censorship and banned it:  

“Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies’ decision-making processes.”

The Biden Regime hopes to convince the Supreme Court that “national security” requires abandoning the US Constitution and to coerce the court into reinstating the Biden regime’s cancellation of the US Constitution.

It is impossible for a country to survive when the values on which the country is founded are abandoned by its leaders.  America is so far gone that not even the media believes in free speech and has happily accepted the role as Ministry of Propaganda.

Certainly corporations do not respect the First Amendment.  Employees must take “harassment training” to remain employed.  Failure to use “Woke pronouns” constitutes harassment and grounds for firing.  In other words, employees do not have freedom of speech.  A coerced Woke policy has control of their tongues and forces the use of words they do not voluntarily use and to which they object.  Employees are forced to lend their validation to the preferences of a tiny perverse collection of confused people.  Why do the non-normal minority have this power over the normal majority?

Take a few minutes and try to identify any institution, public or private, that supports American values.

Trump’s goal of taking back our country might be a task too large.

Chase DeBanks Mercola: DeBanking As A Weapon To Punish Covid Dissent

amidwesterndoctor  |  •At the end of June, English Politician Nigel Farrage reported that his bank accounts had been closed due to him sharing political views that challenged the conventional narrative. Although his bank originally denied deplatforming him for political reasons, an about-face occurred and a few weeks later, the CEO resigned.

•On July 4th, a federal judge ruled that the Biden administration was illegally violating the first amendment by encouraging social media companies to censor anyone who questioned the flawed COVID-19 narrative. Prior to this ruling, the Biden administration was actively having critics of the pandemic policy be censored and de-platformed. Since this ruling, as best as I can tell, it is no longer as easy for them to de-platform political opponents on social media.

Note: In May, a moderately large regional bank collapsed and the Federal Government decided to address the bank failure by having Chase bank to take the failed bank over. This suggests that the Biden Administration is working hand in hand with Chase and may be able to make requests in return for deals (like the bank acquisition) it offered to Chase.

•On July 6th, the FDA gave full approval to the Alzheimer’s drug that had received a questionable backdoor approval in January (discussed below). This approval was based on a 1795 person trial (with 898 receiving the drug) where it was found the drug caused a small decline in the rate of developing cognitive decline over 18 months (based upon the results of a survey that could easily be prone to bias) while at the same time 21.5% of those who received the drug experienced brain bleeding and or brain swelling.

•On July 25th, Dr. Mercola announced not only he, but also his employees and their families had been abruptly deplatformed by Chase:

There are a lot of ways to interpret what happened. The most common interpretation has been that debanking dissidents is fast becoming the preferred way to suppress political opposition (e.g., do you remember last year when Justin Trudaeu had Canada’s banks close all the bank accounts of anyone who peacefully attended the Trucker protests against Canada’s vaccine mandates).

This is likely being pushed forward since debanking is a relatively easy way to create compliance in the population and there is an increasing risk of widespread political rebellion against the bad policies (e.g., the COVID-19 vaccine mandates) that have been pushed by governments around the world. Typically, when policies like these are done, initially small but visible tests are carried out (e.g., a lot of people can clearly see what was done to the families of Dr. Mercola’s employees was wrong) to gauge how the public will react to them and if that tyranny can be normalized. Much of this in encapsulated by a famous poem I live my life by:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

For example, during Obama’s presidency, I watched easy to disparage groups affiliated with the alt-right first be censored online and then be deplatformed by Silicon Valley payment processors (e.g., Paypal). Many of my left-wing friends who were worked in natural health applauded this persecution and could not process why it might not be in their best interests to promote it. That same censorship was then rolled out against them (at which point no one stood up for them) and not to long after that, against anyone who dissented against the COVID narrative.

Note: Since the Federal Government was recently forced to back off from overtly violating the First Amendment on social media, less overt ways of suppressing speech are likely becoming a more and more needed tool for those nonetheless wishing to do so.

However, while all of the above is likely true, there is another important facet to this entire story—antitrust violations.

After the civil war, the US economy was taken over by a group of conniving scoundrels who eventually came to be known as the Robber Barons. A key approach they all shared was creating absolute monopolizations of their respective industries, which allowed them to milk obscene amounts of money as possible from everyone else.

Eventually Theodore Roosevelt put a stop to this through the 1890 Sherman Antitrust act, and broke up their monopolies. I and many others believe that Roosevelt was not entirely successful, because he caused the Robber Barons to diversify into other areas (e.g., after Rockefeller had to break up Standard Oil, he bought out the medical industry).

Since Roosevelt’s time, efforts have been made to prevent big players from monopolizing their respective industries (e.g., in the 1990s, Antitrust Lawsuits against Microsoft revolved around Bill Gates having his Windows operating system not allow competitors software on it), but they have not been as successful. Since that time, Gates appears to have followed in Rockefeller’s monopolizing footsteps and has gradually bought out the global health industry through the leverage created by his foundation and its media advertising dollars (which became obscene during COVID-19).

During Obama’s presidency, we began to see a merger between Big Tech and Big Pharma (as each invested in the other)—discussed further here and here. This was then followed by a gradually increasing censorship of any information online which challenged the pharmaceutical industry’s narrative.

During COVID-19, this kicked into overdrive. First, people were denied access to information about numerous lifesaving therapies for COVID-19 (ultimately resulting in many of them instead being forced to succumb to the remdesivir-ventilator protocol). Following this, a blockade was enacted against any information even hinting at the widespread harm emerging from the COVID-19 vaccines, something most of us believe now caused even more harm than denying the public access to early treatment options for COVID-19. As you all know, many of the things Big Tech censored for being “misinformation” (e.g., COVID-19’s origin from a lab) have since been proven true.

Many have thus argued the Big Tech companies should be held accountable for the harms that resulted from their monopolistic censorship. Although their conduct is beyond egregious, it nonetheless makes a lot of sense if you consider how many investments each industry had in the other and the incentives they all had to monopolize the marketplace so they could all make astronomical amounts of money off COVID-19.

House Judiciary Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government

00:00:03		You? Yeah, I never received it the US. So. Ok. Oh, so
00:01:37		the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing. The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Florida...  Show Full Text
00:01:52		pledge elections to the flag, the street somewhere. What under so from? Yes,
00:02:08		I thank the lady for leading us without objection. Mr Roy will be permitted to participate in this hearing. The chair. Now recognize himself for an opening...  Show Full Text
00:08:58		Thank you, Mr Chair and good morning to everyone. Just have some administrative matters first. I wanted to introduce him to the record page 50 fif 55...  Show Full Text
00:21:30		back generally yields back. I've been asking him consent to enter into the record from page 29 of Miss Delos testimony from three days ago. Question,...  Show Full Text
00:23:05		Thank the chairman, Robert F. Kennedy junior is the son of former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and the nephew of America's 35th president, John...  Show Full Text
00:25:26		I thank the gentleman Mr Kennedy. We're glad you were here. We will now proceed with gold statement. But before I do, I want to introduce the guy...  Show Full Text
00:26:04		Chairman, are you gonna in the witnesses?
00:26:10		You please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear our firm? Do you swear our firm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to...  Show Full Text
00:26:34		He goes to,
00:26:36		he's gonna go a
00:26:38		little longer, excuse me. Point of order. I know that witnesses usually have five minutes. I see 10 minutes on the board. Is it going to be 10 minutes?
00:26:46		Five minutes? But we're, we're pretty lax with this. Uh We'll let him go for,
00:26:51		I've seen him gavel down on quite a number
00:26:54		of witnesses, senators and former Democrat members of Congress and all kinds of people. I, I'm just saying in past history. Ok, we'll, we'll give...  Show Full Text
00:27:04		time for all the witnesses
00:27:05		and if you want to cut him off and censor him some more, you're welcome to do
00:27:08		it. Oh, that's not my job. That's, that's your job. Why don't you threaten the witness so that they can do not want to be a witness is
00:27:15		recognized for his opening statement. We'll give him five minutes more or less and then we'll move to the next one, Mr Kennedy. Go right ahead.
00:27:26		Thank you, Mr Chairman, Mr Chairman. Maybe we could put five minutes on the clock then not 10.
00:27:32		Could we, could we put five on the clock and we'll start it running?
00:27:41		Thank you, Mr Chairman. And I, I wanna, I wanna start, I wanna put aside my written state and for a moment and address one of the points that was...  Show Full Text
00:38:36		a motion or speech.
00:38:37		And I've made a motion to move into executive session because Mr Kennedy's testimony, Mr Chairman
00:38:45		gentleman from Kentucky has moved the table.
00:38:49		Mr Chairman, I asked for a roll call vote on the, on the motion
00:38:52		to table. Well, let me ask the question. The question is on the motion to table. The general lady has asked for a roll call vote. The clerk will have...  Show Full Text
00:39:05		witnesses can sit in the chair sitting behind.
00:39:10		I'll leave that up to the clerks if the clerks are comfortable with that. Yeah. Why don't we do that? Maybe we can go right down here, Mr
00:39:20		Mr Mr Chairman Point of Order.
00:39:22		Gentleman from
00:39:23		Louisiana. Is it the custom of this committee to censor viewpoints that we disagree with from witness
00:39:28		chair? Not a point of order on the table.
00:39:31		There's a motion and the boat's moving
00:39:36		is
00:39:38		waiting for the clerk. Clerk will call the roll, Mr Jordan.
00:39:44		Mr Jordan votes. Yes, Mr Isa Mr Massey.
00:39:49		Yes to not censor
00:39:51		Mr Massey votes. Yes, Mr Stewart Mr Stewart votes. Yes, Mr Mr Votes. Yes, Mr Gates, Mr Johnson of Louisiana, Mr Johnson of Louisiana votes. Yes,...  Show Full Text
00:40:17		Pasco. No, I want to follow the rules that the Republicans made at the beginning of this uh conference with these house rules. So no, Miss
00:40:27		Pasco votes. No, Mr Lynch, Mr Lynch votes. No, Miss Sanchez. No,
00:40:32		because it's violative of the rules
00:40:34		MS Sanchez votes. No, Miss Wasserman Schultz. No,
00:40:37		to allowing a witness to degrade, not violate the rules and not have his testimony and degradation and amplified rather than given an executive
00:40:48		session was votes. No Mr Connolly Mr Connolly votes. No Mr Gardi, Mr Gardi votes. No, Mr Allred MS Garcia. No MS Garcia votes. No Mr Goldman. No...  Show Full Text
00:41:10		Mr Gates.
00:41:11		Yes, Mr Gates. Mr Gates votes. I clerk will report Mr Chairman. There are 10 eyes and eight nos.
00:41:29		Uh the motion to table is agreed to, we will now move to our second witness. Uh Miss Morris, you are recognized for five minutes.
00:41:47		Thank you. Thanks so much for inviting me. Um My name is Emma Joe Morris, uh politics editor at Breitbart. Um I'm here today because I published a...  Show Full Text
00:47:23		Thank you, Miss Morris Mr Sourer. You were recognized for five minutes.
00:47:29		Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the subcommittee on July 4th 2023 Independence Day. Judge Terry, a doughty of the US district court for the western...  Show Full Text
00:52:47		Thank you, Mr Sour MS Wiley. You recognize me,
00:52:56		microphone,
00:53:01		I'm usually quite loud, but thank you for pointing that out. Chair Jordan ranking member Plaskett members of the subcommittee. I want to thank you for...  Show Full Text
00:58:47		General Lady Yields back. We now turn to a five minute question. The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr Bishop for five minutes...  Show Full Text
00:58:59		Mr Chairman. I'm going to focus on the testimony the chairman made reference to and that the ranking member was so concerned with damage control that she...  Show Full Text
01:02:40		Um Yeah, I know we know that the FBI knew that it was real. Uh They knew it was real since not just December 2019. When um is which is when the subpoena...  Show Full Text
01:04:08		well taken M Morris and my time has expired. But what we have always understood in all likelihood, it was true yet, we now have yet one more piece...  Show Full Text
01:04:31		gentleman is back, don't recognize the ranking member for five minutes and I think we'll do a ranking member and one more and then we'll have to...  Show Full Text
01:04:38		Thank you, Mr Chairman. Um I know that we talked earlier about a post that Mr Kennedy had at the beginning of the Biden administration. I just want the...  Show Full Text
01:11:11		time of the gentle lady, time the gentle lady has expired. Gent lady yields back. The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized. Thank you Mr...  Show Full Text
01:11:20		Massey. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota. Wow. The irony and cognitive dissonance from the other side of the aisle, it's deafening. You could cut...  Show Full Text
01:13:56		You belongs
01:13:56		to the gentle belongs to the gentleman.
01:14:00		I denounce that theory. It is racist and I have never endorsed it or had any association with it. Our film on a medical Bill Buxton who is the Black...  Show Full Text
01:14:50		the witness's time.
01:14:51		Do not censor
01:14:52		the witness. I'm not the, I'm not. It
01:14:56		is. It's my time and I've given it to the witness. Do not censor him if the views that you and others have applied to me, I've attributed to me if...  Show Full Text
01:17:00		You. Gentleman yields back to
01:17:02		chairman of a unanimous consent motion before we head to see from
01:17:05		the gentleman from New York.
01:17:06		Uh I would like to introduce uh, page two of the transcript of Laura Dem where, uh specifically she says if someone, she's asked if someone were to leave...  Show Full Text
01:17:47		objection. I think that's already been introduced, but without objection, we'll do it again. Stand in recess, we stand in recess for approximately 40...  Show Full Text
01:18:03		Well, uh I'm not sure I've seen Council. What? Yeah, I get it here. Put on. Ok, I, as we the I, I'll see you later. Right. Thank...  Show Full Text
01:58:39		Maybe we will come to order the the chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
01:58:42		Mr Chairman. I have a point of order, Mr Chairman, I have a point of order
01:58:47		gently considered a point of order.
01:58:49		Thank you, Mr Chairman Mr chairman, I just missed two votes on the house floor because we were not given them. We did not recess on time. I think many...  Show Full Text
01:58:58		probably properly state a point of order
01:59:02		is what is the intent of the chair in the future recesses to avoid the censorship of the voice of my constituents because I was not able to their...  Show Full Text
01:59:17		actually the chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts for his five minutes.
01:59:22		Mr Chairman, may I introduce um some ask unanimous consent introduced uh an article from we are June 8th, 2021 discussing the film, medical racism...  Show Full Text
01:59:46		without objection. Uh uh We'll be entering the record of the chairman as the gentleman from Massachusetts for his five minutes.
01:59:51		Thank you, Mr Chairman Mr Chair. One of the saddest parts of this fabricated circus of outrage is the drumbeat of attacks that I have seen against the...  Show Full Text
02:04:09		ok. Unfortunately, unfortunately, Congressman, there's more than one impact, one impact. That's very clear and obvious. Sadly, for far too many is that...  Show Full Text
02:05:39		gentleman from Massachusetts, the chair, recognized gentleman from Florida. Mr Gates. You and Mr Roy Roy is recognized for, I thank
02:05:45		the gentleman from Florida. I think the chairman Mr Kennedy. First of all, your father served as the Attorney General of the United States. I'm a former...  Show Full Text
02:06:09		Bye. Make sure your microphone, your
02:06:13		microphone. That is exactly the function that the United States Constitution is signed to the people of to the members of Congress. And you know,...  Show Full Text
02:11:55		Time. And the gentlemen, you back time and gentlemen inspire the gentle from California is recognized for five
02:11:59		minutes. Thank you, Chairman and ranking member Plaskett. During the height of COVID-19, the COVID-19 pandemic anti Asian hate and violence skyrocketed...  Show Full Text
02:17:39		Mr Chairman, the Democrat beforehand got an extra minute, her
02:17:42		sentence trying to
02:17:43		be generous and her sentence generous. Even when the response is that the government determines the truth. I
02:17:48		would like for her to be able to finish her sentence, Mr Chairman, then I will yield
02:17:52		back. Ok, Miss Wiley, you can finish your sentence.
02:17:54		Thank you. I'm not sure I remember the sentence but thank you. I just think the point was it
02:17:58		was you were saying the government should be the arbiter, not
02:18:01		put words into the mouth of the witness and let her respond
02:18:04		it now from New York, the general lady from California. I
02:18:08		love how you follow the rules. Mr Chairman. It's really indicative of a decision by the chair. It's censorship by the chair.
02:18:18		Thank you, Mr
02:18:19		Chairman. Thank you, Mr Chairman MS Morris. Isn't it true that your October 2020 Hunter Biden laptop from hell story has proven to be 100% factually accurate....  Show Full Text
02:20:55		Yeah, I, I think, I think democracy is dependent on the free flow of information. And if we, if that information is distorted, if the public is lied...  Show Full Text
02:21:24		And Mr Kennedy, I want to ask you specifically about the Hunter Biden laptop story. The total blackout on all social media outlets as well as telecom....  Show Full Text
02:21:46		I don't know enough about it. I know that uh there was censorship on that story and other stories that, uh, you know, presumably could have changed people's...  Show Full Text
02:22:01		And we know the polling demonstrates that now people have said they would have changed their vote, had they been made aware of the Hunter Biden laptop...  Show Full Text
02:22:10		aware of that, but I'm not surprised.
02:22:12		Um Mr Sauer, uh I want to turn to you. Um, you II I want your reflection on this form of government censorship specifically in the 2020 election as...  Show Full Text
02:22:36		I strongly agree with your characterization of that form of censorship as election interference. The evidence in our case strongly supports that it strongly...  Show Full Text
02:23:34		Mr Chairman.
02:23:35		I have a unanimous consent request.
02:23:38		Young lady from California is recognized for her name's consent.
02:23:41		My majority counterparts have repeatedly cited a district court opinion from Louisiana and I would like to introduce for the record. The Fifth Circuit...  Show Full Text
02:23:51		issued objection. The chair now recognizes the gentle lady for a point of order. Mr Chairman, gentleman from New York is
02:23:56		recognized, the distinguished gentle lady from New York mentioned a poll. Um I would just ask that she identify what poll that is and if we could enter...  Show Full Text
02:24:13		it. Uh, the chair now recognizes that lady from Florida M Washer.
02:24:17		Thank you, Mr Chairman Mr Chairman. We respectfully requested that you rescind Mr Kennedy's invitation to appear here due to his repeated and very recent...  Show Full Text
02:26:24		seconds
02:26:26		entering me correctly dishonest myself. I'd like 15 seconds back. We will be happy to give you that. Thank you so much. You did not cite any study...  Show Full Text
02:29:58		Gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for UC, I
02:30:00		ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record to study that Mr Kennedy just referenced new insights into genetic susceptibility of COVID-19. Uh...  Show Full Text
02:31:04		the gentleman from Utah
02:31:09		and Fair, Azi Jews and Chinese people. That is,
02:31:13		thank you, claiming my time, Mr Kennedy. You've had uh some accusations uh thrown at you today. I'm gonna ask my questions briefly and give you a chance...  Show Full Text
02:36:56		on
02:36:57		Mr Chairman. I have a unanimous consent request. Lady from New York recognized. I'd like to submit for the record tip insight to New Jersey based Institute...  Show Full Text
02:37:24		for the record. That objection. Thank you. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for five minutes.
02:37:29		Thank you, Mr Chairman. I've been in this congress 15 years and I never thought we'd descend to this level of Orwellian dystopia.
02:37:44		This is the
02:37:46		suddenly the tools of the trade are not to get at the truth, but to distract, distort, deflect and dissemble. To disagree is censorship to try to correct...  Show Full Text
02:42:18		Uh Thank you. Thank you, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia. We don't have uh a lot of time to dig into questions. Um But I would just note...  Show Full Text
02:42:50		gentleman yields back the chair now recognizes Mr Johnson from Louisiana. I'm so
02:42:54		grateful for that segue from Mr Golden because we're about to talk about hard evidence here. It's really ironic. This hearing is covering the left censorship...  Show Full Text
02:48:05		gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes Mr Allred from Texas for his five minutes. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I yield my time
02:48:13		to MS Blaske and I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr Kennedy and others here are claiming that they've been censored, but they actually have a...  Show Full Text
02:52:21		and I, uh, yield remain of the
02:52:23		lady yields back. Um, I now recognize Mr Stuy from, uh Florida for his five minutes,
02:52:30		Mr Kennedy. Do you want to respond to that? Can you do that quickly? Yeah, I've
02:52:33		never heard of Mr Balls and I've never heard of that super pac. This is typical of the accusations against me at this hearing. They are baseless. Every...  Show Full Text
02:53:14		uh to further the disinformation going on. Uh M Wiley. In response to a question, you stated that the decision in Missouri V. Biden was vacated by...  Show Full Text
02:53:26		I did and I want to correct that because Mr so is right, the appropriate word is stayed,
02:53:30		administratively stayed. So it hasn't been vacated or dismissed like Mrs Sanchez stayed,
02:53:34		which means it cannot be implemented right now. Ok.
02:53:37		Because you know, I didn't want us to censor your disinformation that you stated as a factual assertion earlier. So I did
02:53:43		misspeak and I
02:53:44		apologize. Thank you for clarifying that for us and to talk about more evidence about. I think it's interesting, there's a lot in this opinion and I just,...  Show Full Text
02:56:50		It's very telling that the judicial findings are quite specific on the specific threats. So there's several ways you can violate the first amendment if...  Show Full Text
02:57:56		I'm the gentleman that's expired
02:57:58		chairman of unanimous consent requests. Gentleman from Louisiana. There's a lot of talk about this uh preliminary injunction. So I'd like to enter...  Show Full Text
02:58:21		back uh with, without objection,
02:58:23		Mr Chair, I'd like the unanimous consent to enter into the record an article um that says pro Frfk Junior Super PAC has deep ties to Marjorie Taylor...  Show Full Text
02:58:50		objection. Uh The, the chair now recognizes the uh general Lady from Texas, I believe. Is, is that the Thank
02:58:56		you, thank you Mr Chairman and um I live in Houston but I was born and raised in rural South Texas, uh, and shamefully rural South Texas, uh, and...  Show Full Text
03:04:16		The gentle lady has expired the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from Wyoming M ha.
03:04:21		I got a death threat after the last here
03:04:24		I belong to the G A from Wyoming.
03:04:27		I want to thank you, Mr Sauer, MS Morris and Mr Kennedy for your courage for your willingness to be the tip of the spear to protect all of our first...  Show Full Text
03:09:46		General Lady back. The gentleman from you a good one. Uh The chair now recognizes the gentle lady from uh Florida. Miss kick
03:10:09		my microphone is broken.
03:10:11		Tell you my phone broke. Um This maybe you over.
03:10:14		Yeah, sorry. The microphone is broken. Wait, that might work. OK. All right. Sorry. This microphone is broken. Want to thank all our witnesses for being...  Show Full Text
03:10:53		Oh, I, I, I believe that there is a distinction between uh any conversation about a government versus a group of people.
03:11:06		So do you believe that each of my Democratic colleagues should publicly denounce her comments, not continue to give her a platform to make statements like...  Show Full Text
03:15:19		It's, it's just this, I can't even believe this is a conversation like this is not controversial or taboo. We live in the United States of America and...  Show Full Text
03:15:32		Mr Kennedy, a government that can censor its critics as licensed for every atrocity. It is the beginning of totalitarianism. There's never been a time...  Show Full Text
03:16:04		and I know my time has expired. But Mr Sara, you said earlier, censorship is about power. Censorship is about control and the entire progressive leftist...  Show Full Text
03:16:20		yields back. Gentleman from New York is recognized,
03:16:22		Mr Before that I have um a document I'd like to enter into the record or Washington Post article of July 23rd, which lists the misstates misstatements...  Show Full Text
03:16:39		about for what, what
03:16:41		I said, the Washington Post,
03:16:43		that gentleman from New York. Thank you,
03:16:46		Mr Chairman Mr Sower. Welcome back to the committee. It's great to see you again. You're becoming a mainstay on the committee. And I do hope that you...  Show Full Text
03:17:12		COVID-19 is targeted to attack uh Caucasians and, and uh and uh black people, the people who have most here are asking Jews and uh and Chinese
03:17:29		Mr Kennedy, I have a simple question for you as a early victim of COVID. I actually got it uh March 10th 2020. And, and my question to you is whether...  Show Full Text
03:17:49		No, not at all. And that statement that you saw there is a truncated version of a larger state.
03:17:58		I understand you you issued
03:18:01		it would
03:18:02		hold on. I just, I got now going on reclaiming my time because what I really want to talk about here is evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence Mr...  Show Full Text
03:22:16		back. Gentleman yields back the chair and not recognize himself hard evidence. Mr Johnson said that we're not only witnesses to censorship, we were...  Show Full Text
03:22:50		I remember when the ac lu represented Nazis who they, who they were appalled
03:22:58		by, appalled, disgusted by and yet they would defend the crazy things they said, right? That that's how much the first amendment meant to him. Right....  Show Full Text
03:25:56		Oh, well, you know what I would say is that the, the, the founders of our, and the framers of our constitution knew that democracy was a very inefficient...  Show Full Text
03:27:18		example. Exactly. I couldn't have said it better. I recognize the gentleman from uh
03:27:23		Mr Chairman. I have a unanimous consent request. Gentlemen said a request uh as for unanimous consent to entered the record, an article by the New...  Show Full Text
03:27:40		consent without objection. Uh Some, some things amaze me. Uh the gentleman from Kentucky is recognized and this is uh this will be our, our, our last...  Show Full Text
03:27:51		immutable and undeniable, uh tenets of immunology is natural immunity, but for two years, it was denied, it wasn't even just denied. It was censored....  Show Full Text
03:28:26		Yes, that kind of censorship was going on and there were direct communications between the platforms and federal officials about natural immunity specifically...  Show Full Text
03:28:36		thanks to the Twitter files, we found out that the former FDA director who was on the board of pfizer is Doctor Scott Gottlieb wrote on August 27th,...  Show Full Text
03:33:54		comments from the time the gentleman has expired. I, I may I have, I have 11 other question I can ask, but I, I would first give you a chance...  Show Full Text
03:34:14		I wasn't prepared for that. So I
03:34:17		thought, I thought I was gonna get 15 seconds for Mr Massey, but we aren't able to do that.
03:34:21		Thank you, sir. Um I did want to ask Miss Wiley regarding we had a discussion and it was brought up by one of the witnesses um related to the website...  Show Full Text
03:35:47		Thank you. Actually, I'm gonna let Mr Johnson have our, our one minute here, but I think he wants to wait for Mr Kennedy to, well,
03:35:55		I can be asking to Mr Sour. Um I'm sorry that Mr Goldman left because we talked a lot about evidence. Isn't it true in your litigation? Missouri...  Show Full Text
03:37:03		gentlemen, yields back. Um, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. We appreciate the work you're doing to, to defend the First Amendment....  Show Full Text
03:37:31		not want Mr Chair.
03:37:35		I don't, I haven't adjourned the hearing and I don't think you're the chair, Mr
03:37:39		Chair, I
03:37:42		chairman's discretion.
03:37:45		He has had so much additional time. Well, I think why, why, why are you doing that specifically for him? Because
03:37:55		I'm sure there was Super Pac. I be as short as he possibly
03:38:00		can. Are you going to allow our witness to just give another
03:38:04		piece? No, let him address the comment that was made about him. That's untrue
03:38:08		was not defamatory. That is a legal definition that was not met. I want
03:38:14		information about the Super Pac that you mentioned. Go ahead. I've just been told that that Super Pac is connected to somebody that we have a connection...  Show Full Text
03:38:33		Thank the gentleman uh for uh that statement and I thank you for your testimony. The committee is now adjourned.
03:39:12		Has to. Exactly. So a life, you know. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, we, you guys right to come. Thank you much. Thank you. OK. I'm just...  Show Full Text

*This text was compiled from uncorrected Closed Cap