SMOKING GUN MEMO LAID OUT LEFT’S ASSAULT ON CONSERVATIVES


On 8/29/18 I cross posted Joseph Farah’s email alert “The shocking Soros ‘speech code cartel’ memo”. Farah exposed a Leftist agenda under the support of George Soros a memo authored by David Brock with a game plan to undermine President Trump squelch Conservative voices online: “Full David Brock Confidential Memo On Fighting Trump”.

 

Matthew Vadum does more than talk about it. Vadum adds some detail on FrontPageMag.com.

 

JRH 9/1/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or despising) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

***********************

SMOKING GUN MEMO LAID OUT LEFT’S ASSAULT ON CONSERVATIVES

While President Trump was being inaugurated, the Soros-funded Left was busy agitating.

 

By Matthew Vadum

August 30, 2018

FrontPage Magazine

 

George Soros

 

[To learn more about the Freedom Center’s recent victory over the Left’s censorship attempt, and its call for a coalition across party and ideological lines to defend free speech, click here.]

 

A strategy memo compiled by George Soros-funded activist groups as President Trump was being inaugurated last year foretold and seemed to lay the groundwork for many of the political difficulties Trump now faces and the politics-related strife now roiling the nation.

 

The memo takes on a heightened importance as the politically-driven censorship of conservatives by the gigantic, unregulated social media corporations controlled by the Left is moving into high gear while the crucial midterm congressional elections of Nov. 6 approach.

 

The intensely anti-conservative animus in the memo may have inspired MasterCard and WorldPay’s attempt on Aug. 21 to strangle the fundraising efforts of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, publisher of FrontPage, by refusing to complete its financial transactions. On that day MasterCard informed the Freedom Center that it would no longer process its transactions because it had been labeled a “hate group” by the radical leftist groups known as the Southern Poverty Law Center and ColorOfChange.org. The Freedom Center stood falsely accused of being “hateful in nature” and “advocating for violence.”

 

Only a massive outcry by conservative groups and prominent conservatives like Rush Limbaugh forced MasterCard to back down days later and restore the Freedom Center’s online fundraising facilities. But other conservative websites haven’t been so lucky. Many have been shut down or seen their traffic slashed as leftists have manipulated algorithms and limited the reach of conservative content.

 

The David Horowitz Freedom Center has since called for a coalition to be created across partisan and ideological lines to defend free speech.

 

The memo itself, “Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action,” marked an escalation in tactics by the Left. It was first made public last year by Joe Schoffstall of the Washington Free Beacon around the time Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the nation’s 45th president. This smoking-gun planning document aimed at suppressing conservative voices on social media was ignored by the mainstream media at the time and in the more than a year-and-a-half since.

 

The document spelled out the Left’s plans for impeaching President Trump, filing lawsuits against the fledgling administration, and using social media to delegitimize Trump’s presidency and hurt Republicans. “Right now, our institutions are among the critical few that stand between the America we love and the abyss,” the memo stated. “We must protect and defend our democratic values. We will not back down. We will only move forward.”

 

WND founder Joseph Farah referred last week to the 49-page memo as a blueprint “revealing how George Soros operatives, including David Brock, were there at the genesis, the planning stages, with their hands on the ignition key, of the most concerted, well-funded, diabolical attack on free speech in the history of America.”

 

The document “was nothing short of a plan to turn Google, Facebook and other social media into hyper-partisan Democratic Party activists, promoters, cheerleaders, and off-the-books donors in an effort to turn the country into a one-party state.”

 

The memo outlined left-wing activist David Brock’s four-year plan to undermine the Trump administration and Republicans using Media Matters for America (MMfA), American Bridge 21st Century, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and left-wing propaganda website Shareblue. All four organizations were either founded by Brock or are now controlled by him. Since 2008, leftist billionaire George Soros has given more than $1.5 million to MMfA and more than $1.1 million to CREW through his philanthropies.

 

Brock, who reportedly raised $65 million during the 2016 election cycle, began working on his plan more or less immediately after Republican Donald Trump unexpectedly trounced Democrat Hillary Clinton in the presidential election in November 2016.

 

Brock and his comrades met in Palm Beach, Fla., as Trump assumed the presidency and Trump-hating Antifa rioted in the streets of the nation’s capital. “What better way to spend inaugural weekend than talking about how to kick Donald Trump’s ass?” Brock said in an email to left-wing mega-donors including Soros and Tom Steyer.

 

Whether Brock can take responsibility for all the leftist-inspired turmoil in the country is debatable, but many of the goals identified in the memo have already come to pass.

 

According to the memo, MMfA “will continue its core mission of disarming right-wing information.” This is what “success will look like,” the document states:

 

Serial misinformers and right-wing propagandists inhabiting everything from social media to the highest levels of government will be exposed, discredited.

Internet and social media platforms, like Google and Facebook, will no longer uncritically and without consequence host and enrich fake news sites and propagandists.

 

Toxic alt-right social media-fueled harassment campaigns that silence dissent and poison our national discourse will be punished and halted.

 

CREW will become “the leading nonpartisan ethics watchdog group in a period of crisis with a president and administration that present possible conflicts of interest and ethical problems on an unprecedented scale,” the memo states.

 

CREW “will demand ethical conduct from the administration and all parts of government, expose improper influence from powerful interests, and ensure accountability when the administration and others shirk ethical standards, rules, and laws.”

 

Success will take this form, according to the document:

 

Trump will be afflicted by a steady flow of damaging information, new revelations, and an inability to avoid conflicts issues.

 

The Trump administration will be forced to defend illegal conduct in court.

 

Powerful industries and interest groups will see their influence wane.

 

Dark money will be a political liability in key states.

 

The Shareblue website “will take back social media for Democrats,” the memo states. The group will “delegitimize Donald Trump’s presidency by emboldening the opposition and empowering the majority of Americans who oppose him.”

 

Success will be achieved when the following happens:

 

Shareblue will become the de facto news outlet for opposition leaders and the grassroots.

 

Trump allies will be forced to step down or change course due to news pushed by Shareblue.

 

Under pressure from Shareblue, Democrats will take more aggressive positions against Trump.

 

Shareblue will achieve financial sustainability while diversifying content offerings and platforms.

 

Top editorial and writing talent will leave competitors to join Shareblue.

 

Meanwhile, President Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday that social media giants Google, Twitter, and Facebook “better be careful” because they “are treading on very, very troubled territory” by favoring left-wing viewpoints.

 

Earlier that day he tweeted, “This is a very serious situation—will be addressed!”

 

“Google search results for ‘Trump News’ shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD,” he wrote. “Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal.”

 

Google CEO Sundar Pichai has indicated he will not testify at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Sept. 5. on social media and Russian meddling in American elections. Unlike Pichai, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg are expected to testify.

 

Whether Dorsey and Sandberg will tell the truth is an open question.

____________________

Matthew Vadum, senior vice president at the investigative think tank Capital Research Center, is an award-winning investigative reporter and author of the book, “Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.”

 

© COPYRIGHT 2018, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

Donate to Front Page Magazine

Begin Anti-Censorship Movement


Conservatives & Counterjihadists UNITE to Battle Leftist Censors

John R. Houk

© August 21, 2018

 

Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones is facing a ban from all quadrants of Social Media, Prager U is being censored by Facebook and Youtube, and more. These appear to be the main culprits that hate Conservative ideology so much that they direct wholesale bans, shadow bans and temporary jail which is essentially a suspension of service for a period of time:

 

  • Facebook

 

  • Google

 

  • Twitter

 

  • Youtube (Google owned)

 

I myself have experienced the jail-privilege from Facebook and Google (specifically from G+) several times. As of this writing, G+ is preventing even a “request” to “join” any G+ Community. As a test I even withdrew from a couple of low-traffic Communities, then I tried to put in a couple of “ask to join” requests. Each time a little banner-box pops up telling me there was an error and try again later.

 

I’ve been trying later for weeks now and the error message still pops up.

 

Here is a list of Conservatives censored one way or the other from 3/4/18 Gateway Pundit:

 

Young Cons: Extremely popular conservative news site and received millions of daily readers during the election.  The website received nearly all of its traffic from Facebook. Since 2016 Facebook shut down stories to Young Cons.  Each algorithm change meant less traffic for the popular website.  YoungCons was blacklisted by Facebook and struggles to maintain readers.  The site regularly switches domains to save traffic.

 

SarahPalin.com: With over 4 million fans one of the popular conservative pages on Facebook until Facebook blocked all traffic to the website.  The page was forced to change the domain to save traffic numbers.

 

Right Wing News:  Right Wing News grew to an enormous website in the past few years thanks its popularity on Facebook. In July of 2015, in just a week, the Right Wing News Facebook page reached 133 million people. Because conservatives were sharing content they were interested in, Right Wing News (with 3.6 million Facebook likes) was driving the same amount of web traffic as some of the biggest newspapers in America.  Since the 2016 election Facebook blocked traffic to the website.  Owner John Hawkins announced he was shutting down the website in January.

 

Western Journalism: Newsweek reported that the site has grown from receiving 1,000 page views a day in 2009[3] to more than 1 million during 2016. The website was averaging around 6 million page views a day according to Quantcast during the election. Today it is down to around 500,000 a day. Western Journalism was blacklisted by Facebook.

 

The Gateway Pundit: TGP was ranked as the 4th most influential conservative news source during the 2016 election. The site in 2016 received nearly a third of its traffic from Facebook. This past weekend Facebook blocked all traffic from recent stories to the website. TGP advertised with Facebook and is another top conservative website blacklisted by the company. TGP is also shadow-banned by Google and frequently attacked and smeared by the liberal media.

 

President Trump Facebook page:  A recent algorithm change has caused President Donald Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts to plummet a whopping 45%. In contrast, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) do not appear to have suffered a comparable decline in Facebook engagement, reported Breitbart’s Alum Bokhari.

 

Independent Journal Review:  A massive conservative website based on Facebook audience.  The Independent Journal Review (IJR) terminated a number of its employees on Thursday, leaving an unclear future for the millennial-focused conservative website that has recently faced a declining audience.  IDF was also shadow-banned and blacklisted.

 

Breitbart.com:  Breitbart was the most influential conservative news source in 2016 with a massive audience.  Since the election Breitbart is constantly targeted and smeared by far left operations.  Breitbart advertising was targeted by Sleeping Giants and other Soros sites.

 

InfoWars:  Infowars is another dominant conservative site with enormous traffic.  After several years of video production and tens of thousands of video YouTube gave Infowars its third strike this week and threatens to shut the YouTube Channel down.

 

Rightside Broadcasting: This YouTube Channel had millions of views before the election.  Since 2016 YouTube has shadow-banned all of their videos.  YouTube has classified its videos of President Trump at a rally as hate speech.  YouTube has demonetized hundreds of its videos.  YouTube hides its videos.  Income for the site is down 95% since the election.

 

Natural News: A very prominent health website and the world’s top source on natural health. The site receives tens of thousands of readers every day. YouTube wiped out over 1,700 videos covering everything from nutrition, natural medicine, history, science and current events.

 

From a reader: You Tube deleted Natural News Channel. It’s conservative and full of info on health, too. I took a screen shot. I’m very upset. My husband has aggressive cancer from. Agent Orange and I depended on this channel for his diet among other things. The man, Mike Adams, is literally a genius, and I mean literally, and he is very conservative.

 

Prager Report:  PragerU, a conservative educational site, is suing Google and its subsidiary YouTube, accusing the video site of censoring its online videos because of their political leanings.  YouTube has banned several of its videos including segments on abortion and Islam.   Prager U has a massive conservative audience in the millions.

 

Pamela Geller.com Pamela is well-known for speaking out against radical Islam.  ISIS has threatened to behead her several times.  During the election PG had over 100,000 daily views from Facebook.  Today Facebook has shut down most of her traffic.  Her website suffered serious losses in revenue since the election.

 

Diamond and Silk: Pro-Trump YouTube sensations have a suit against YouTube. The Trump supporters announced in August 2017 that 95% of their videos have been demonetized on YouTube.

 

This list is derived from March 2018. Indeed, I just receive an email Alert from ACT for America that Youtube has pulled videos. The ACT email states according to Youtube rules, this video removal counts as a strike. The email doesn’t specify how many strikes have been placed on ACT for America, but the rules state three-strikes and the Youtube Channel is removed.

 

The most recent video related to reporting on the Islamic cult compound being busted for child abuse and training kids to be school shooters among other things. Youtube called the video report HATE SPEECH.

 

ACT for America began a petition to protest the Youtube action. Other than validation for ACT choices, I am unsure how much effect such a petition will have.

 

What needs to happen is to have Conservative and Counterjihad writers and organizations ban [maybe “ban” is the wrong word for this instance – maybe “group] together, perhaps with some kind of joint-petition with the goal of influencing legislation.

 

Below is the ACT email Alert about unjust Youtube censorship.

 

JRH 8/21/18

Please Support NCCR

*********************

Help Us Fight Big Tech Censorship!

 

Sent by Brigitte Gabriel

Sent 8/21/2018 12:11 PM

Sent from ACT for America

 

Big tech companies are using their power and influence to censor the conservative voice. ACT for America has experienced this first hand over the last few weeks.

 

First, YouTube removed an ACT for America video that dated all the way back to 2012 – in the process of removing the video, YouTube applied a “strike” to our account. If an account receives three strikes in a 90-day period, the account is expelled from YouTube. This is problematic because YouTube is the ONLY major platform to share videos from and if ACT for America were to lose our YouTube channel – we would be at a serious disadvantage to other organizations.

 

Youtube Attention Warning

 

Most recently, I called Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, the terrorist who was just charged for training young children in New Mexico to shoot up schools, “sick and depraved.” Calling a terrorist who takes pleasure in training young children to kill people “sick and depraved” should not be controversial. However, Facebook did not agree. Within just a few hours of posting about the accused terrorist, Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, my account was suspended for 24 hours for violating Facebook’s policy regarding “hate speech.” Yes, that’s right – I was suspended from Facebook for calling a terrorist “sick and depraved.”

 

Fortunately, Twitter did not find my post to violate their hate speech policies – you can take a look at my post below:

 

Screenshot Brigitte Gabriel report on depraved Muslim Terrorist

 

That’s the reality we live in right now with big tech companies. Kathy Griffin can pose with a decapitated head of our President and receive no punishment, but if I call a terrorist sick and depraved I get suspended for hate speech. These Orwellian “hate speech” policies are being implemented with the explicit purpose to silence conservative voices.

 

Click below to sign our petition demanding big tech companies to stop censoring conservatives!

 

SIGN OUR PETITION

 

This is about protecting our First Amendment right to express ourselves freely. I hope you will stand with me in this fight!

 

For Freedom,

 

Brigitte Gabriel

Founder & Chairman

ACT for America

++++++++++++++++++

[Blog Editor: Here is a video of Natural News Editor fuming over Youtube & Facebook censorship. The roughly 44-minute post uses the REAL.VIDEO platform no doubt to avoid Youtube censors. The thing is I’m not sure if the embed code will work on my blogs (especially WordPress). If that occurs click the embedded link within the title.]

 

REAL.VIDEO: Mike Adams statement on President Trump’s censorship warning to tech giants

https://www.real.video/5823898284001

 

Posted by REAL video (official)

Published: 8/18/18

++++++++++++++++

Zolnar Report REAL.VIDEO

 

REAL.VIDEO: Finally, President Trump Calls Out The Social media Giant’s, Now What?

https://www.real.video/5823884067001

 

Posted by zolnareport.com

Published: 8/18/18

 

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/08/18/donald-trump-condemns-social-media-companies-for-biased-censorship/

______________________

Begin Anti-Censorship Movement

Conservatives & Counterjihadists UNITE to Battle Leftist Censors

 

John R. Houk

© August 21, 2018

___________________

Help Us Fight Big Tech Censorship!

 

© 2018 ACT Content LLC. 

 ACT for America Education, Inc. is a registered 501 c (3) organization.

 

ACT for America is the nation’s largest national security grassroots organization with over 1 million members dedicated to keeping America safe and it’s citizens secure from all threats foreign & domestic. Click here to support our efforts.

 

About Founder Brigitte Gabriel

 

Brigitte Gabriel is one of the leading terrorism experts in the world providing information and analysis on the rise of global Islamic terrorism. She lectures nationally and internationally about terrorism and current affairs. Her expertise is sought after by world and business leaders.

 

She has addressed the United Nations, Australian Prime Minister, members of The British Parliament/House of Commons, members of the United States Congress, The Pentagon, The Joint Forces Staff College, The US Special Operations Command, The US Asymmetric Warfare group, the FBI, and many others.

 

In addition, Gabriel is a regular guest analyst on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, and various radio stations daily across America.

 

Ms. Gabriel is Founder and Chairman of ACT for America, the largest national security grassroots organization in the U.S. with One million members dedicated to preserving national security and promoting Western values. She is a NYT best-selling author of three books the latest is “RISE” In Defense of Judeo Christian Values and Freedom.

 

Ms. Gabriel was knighted in Europe in 2016 by the Knights of Malta, for her international work on fighting terrorism and standing up for Western Judeo-Christian Values. She joins a long list of knights including former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Nelson Mandela, Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, and others.

 

Ms. Gabriel is named one of the top 50 most prominent speakers in America. She speaks Arabic, French, English, and Hebrew.

 

Dems Want Social Platform Censorship by Blaming Russians – AGAIN


John R. Houk

© January 25, 2018

Yesterday I stumbled upon a Fox News story in which Dems Senator Feinstein and Rep. Schiff have publicly called for Twitter, Facebook and now I read – Google, to investigate Russian bots spreading the meme #ReleaseTheMemo. My least favorite Fox host Shepherd Smith seemed to move story to agree with the Dems. Here’s the 4:30 minute segment on Youtube:

 

VIDEO: Top Democrats claim Russian bots are pushing #ReleaseTheMemo

 

Posted by Fox News

Published on Jan 24, 2018

 

Rep. Schiff and Sen. Feinstein say the classified memo prepared by staffers working for Devin Nunes is misleading and is being pushed online as part of a smear campaign against law enforcement officials investigating Team Trump; insight from Axios reporter Alayna Treene.

 

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as READ THE REST

 

In essence my first reaction the Dems were trying to get off the hook about corruption among Obama/Hillary cadres in the FBI and DOJ. Indeed, after Googling “Russian Bots,” I found MSM after MSM site pushing the Dem meme of Russian Bots. Just like loyal Leftist Pravda spreading Communist propaganda, the MSM pushed the Dem assertion Russia was involved in the American legal system to taint the FBI and the Mueller investigation purportedly investigating the Trump Campaign for President colluded with Russia to win said Campaign.

 

I felt the Dems were pulling the Russia-Russia-Russia load of crap to deflect from the real collusion story of Dems and Dem-favoring FBI and DOJ trying to discredit President Trump for an idiotic excuse to impeach him on FALSE evidence.

 

It turns out I am CORRECT! The Daily Caller picked up on a story from the Left-leaning Daily Beast which substantiates that an overwhelming majority of the viral message of “#ReleaseTheMail” was driven by red-blooded Americans rather than Russian Bots:

 

DC VIDEO: No Russian Bots …

http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/23/no-russian-bots-note-behind-releasethememo/

 

 

According to The Beast:

 

A knowledgeable source says that Twitter’s internal analysis has thus far found that authentic American accounts, and not Russian imposters or automated bots, are driving #ReleaseTheMemo. There are no preliminary indications that the Twitter activity either driving the hashtag or engaging with it is either predominantly Russian.

 

In short, according to this source, who would not speak to The Daily Beast for attribution, the retweets are coming from inside the country. (No, Russian Bots Weren’t Behind The #ReleaseTheMemo Hashtag; By Chuck Ross; Daily Caller; 1/23/18 6:27 PM)

 

Now you realize that Twitter management is not exactly a Right-leaning Social Platform, right? Ergo, you must understand that the Dems – particularly Senator Feinstein and Rep. Schiff – are calling for Twitter, Facebook and Google to censor Conservative dialog on the Social Platforms used by Americans.

 

The best details I have found pertaining to the Dem Fake News propaganda trying to Censor my fellow Conservatives is at The Federalist.

 

JRH 1/25/18

Please Support NCCR

**********************

The Russia ‘Fake News’ Scare Is All About Chilling Speech

 

By David Harsanyi

JANUARY25, 2018

The Federalist

UNITED STATES – JUNE 16: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., speaks during a news conference in the Capitol on Democratic on gun control measures, June 16, 2016. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

Last week Republicans began to call for the release of a memo authored by House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes that purports to lay out a series of abuses connected to the FBI surveillance of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. As often happens these days, a Twitter hashtag evolved around the effort, #ReleaseTheMemo, and was widely retweeted by Republicans and elected officials.

 

It didn’t take long for a report to emerge claiming that Russian-sponsored Twitter accounts and bots were the real driving force behind the viral call for the release of the memo. Without worrying about the veracity of this convenient claim, all the usual suspects giddily spread the story across social media — probably because they have such a deep reverence for truth in the Era of Trump.

 

The report also prompted Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff, both Democrats, to pull out every fearmongering catchphrase available to demand that Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg perform an “in-depth forensic examination” on the “ongoing attack by the Russian government through Kremlin-linked social media actors directly acting to intervene and influence our democratic process.”

 

It’s difficult, it seems, for some people to embrace neutral principles nowadays. But if you genuinely believe that Donald Trump’s distasteful tweets are attacks on the foundations of free expression, how can you not be alarmed by a pair of powerful elected officials demanding social media companies hand over information about their users? What would they say if the president had sent a letter to Google insisting they give the executive branch an “in-depth forensic examination” of his political opponent’s searches?

 

As it turns out, reports today say that Twitter’s internal analysis found that it was mostly Americans, not creepy Slavic mind-control robots, who were behind the hashtags. Not that it really matters, anyway. If a group of Americans have a legitimate issue to rally around, how are they supposed to control what outsiders do? It’s not as if #ReleaseTheMemo was a secret or illegal. Republican politicians were openly using it.

 

Yet, if Feinstein and Schiff had their way, Twitter and Facebook would have moved to quash the #ReleaseTheMemo hashtag for what turned out to be apparently solely partisan reasons. Sounds like a power that can be abused. Even if the two had been genuinely troubled by Russian hashtags — yes, suspend your disbelief — the source of fake news is not always easily discernible. Sometimes it comes to you from an anonymous Russian bot, and sometimes it’s retweeted by a prominent journalist.

 

Democrats have manufactured panic over amateurish Russian propaganda to not only claim that Vlad Putin was “meddling” in the election, but also to argue that interference had the power to turn the election to Trump. With this risible idea in hand, they have created paranoia about social media interactions and rationalized infringements on expression.

 

Not long before demanding forensic investigations into hashtags, Feinstein was demanding Twitter, Facebook, and Google more tightly restrict its content, threatening, “Do something about it — or we will.” Democrats have attempted to control interactions through Fairness Doctrines or the IRS, and now the Russia scare. Part of living in a free country is dealing with messy, ugly misinformation.

 

 

Lots of people in the United States seem pretty impressed by how they do things in Europe. In Britain, Prime Minister Theresa May is launching “a rapid response unit” run by the state to “battle the proliferation of ‘fake news’ online.” A “National Security Communications Unit” will be tasked to combat misinformation — as if it has either the power or ability to do so. In France, President Emmanuel Macron is working on a plan to combat “fake news,” which includes the power to “emergency block” websites during elections. What could possibly go wrong.

 

Me? I’d rather we live with Russian troll bots feeding us nonsense than authoritarian senators dictating how we consume news. I mean, has anyone yet produced a single voter who lost his or her free will during the 2016 election because he had a Twitter interaction with an employee of a St. Petersburg troll farm? Or do voters tend to seek out the stories that back their own worldviews?

 

If your argument is that American are uninformed and easily misled, I’m with you. Just look at all the people who believe that a $46,000 buy on Facebook by the Russians was enough to destroy the pillars of our democracy. But if you want to live in a free and vibrant nation, you have to live with the externalities of that freedom.

 

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.

________________

Dems Want Social Platform Censorship by Blaming Russians – AGAIN

John R. Houk

© January 25, 2018

__________________

The Russia ‘Fake News’ Scare Is All About Chilling Speech

 

Copyright © 2018 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

Left’s Free Speech War


Waged with Financial Institutions and Social Media

 

John R. Houk

© September 22, 2017

 

I don’t know if you have noticed the American Left has been trying to shut up Conservative and Counterjihad outlets by attack their pocketbooks based on the Marxist oriented SPLC hate list. The SPLC hate list places non-violent, Conservative/Biblically Christian values organizations as well as those that expose the violent nature inherent in Islamic revered writings on the same list as the violent KKK and the various Neo-Nazi organizations. Ironically the SPLC does not have violent ideologies like Antifa, Black Lives Matter, the New Black Panthers, Marxist-Racist Black Liberation Theology and the ilk on a Hate List.

 

If you are on the SPLC Hate List, financial organizations such as PayPal will terminate your account making it difficult to receive online donations from supporters of non-violent Patriot organizations, Christian Organizations, Counterjihadists, expose the Homosexual Agenda organizations and so on of non-violent charitable or non-profit organizations.

 

You could probably win a bet in saying the Leftist Mainstream Media (MSM) has not reported or extremely under-reported the Leftist attack on the financial situation of these organizations. This is the reason behind me wondering if you were aware of the financial attack.

 

Jihad Watch (Robert Spencer) and Pamela Geller were suspended. Then a few days later were reinstated (Jihad Watch & Geller) to PayPal. I suspect their following made such a big deal that PayPal felt compelled to reinstate them.

 

I use PayPal on my blogs. According to the SPLC I would be a propagator of hate because I would be categorized as a homophobe (Supportive Biblical Values), Pro-Life/anti-abortion thus categorized anti-women’s Rights, Islamophobic (Exposing violence in Islamic revered writings and correlating to today’s Muslim terrorism), Pro-Christian in government yet anti-government in Faith and probably lesser SPLC Marxist violations I can’t think of now at this moment.

 

If a Leftie complains to PayPal they would probably suspend my account. I don’t have a huge Spencer/Geller support base. I would be forced to look elsewhere for online support. Can any of you fellow small potatoes bloggers relate?

 

Bare Naked Islam (BNI) has a story on SPLC-hate related influence, listing other Leftist and Islamic-apologist websites creating their hate lists pushing financial institutions to dump ethical organizations that expose the Left and Pro-Islamist interests. For sure BNI does rub some folks the wrong way with their brusque literary style, but the info is valid.

 

I have found myself in Social Media jail with both Facebook and Google in the past. I always found the jail an interesting plight since I do not use profanity nor do I advocate any kind of violence especially murder, of those I highly disagree with. So, I was in Social Media jail for either being a Biblical Christian, the Leftist epithet of being a homophobe, the Islamic Apologist epithet of Islamophobe or whatever Conservative value upset a whiner who complained.

 

The pseudonymous Counterjihadist Bill Warner discovered Social Media jail recently and he has a much larger following than I. And CBN.com has a story on the effects of SPLC Christian-bashing. I am cross posting the Warner email and the CBN.com story.

 

JRH 9/22/17

Please Support NCCR

******************

Strategy To Survive The Silencing Storm

The Life Preserver for the New Censored Web

 

Bill Warner

 

By Bill Warner

Sent via PoliticalIslam.com

Sent September 15, 2017, 8:09:48 AM CDT

 

Twitter put me on a 12-hour ban for mentioning Islamic doctrine (see “offensive” tweet below) and Germany banned my account for good with no explanation as to why.

 

Twitter Censorship of Political Islam

 

Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are no longer “friendly” to our message. Political correctness reigns on our major social media platforms and is suppressing free speech across the right and left spectrum of religion and politics. The Islamo-Left is adhering to the Sharia.

There is a distinct possibility that eventually I will be totally censored from these major social media platforms. We need to prepare for that day. The only method of communication that is entirely safe is newsletters. It is for this reason I ask you to forward my newsletters to others and urge them to sign up so the facts about political Islam can be known. I wish to thank those of you who do this now. We must be creative and stand firm for our rights of free speech and expression.

 

Here’s a great example by Pamela Geller & friends at AFDI. Seriously, “Can’t we talk about this?”
 

Vimeo VIDEO: Can’t We Talk About This?

The true story of the Islamic Supremacist war on free speech as told by those on the front lines fighting for our First Amendment rights, including Mark Steyn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Douglas Murray, Raheem Kassam, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Ezra Levant, Paul Weston, Milo Yiannopolous and cartoonists living under death threat Lars Vilks and Bosch Fawstin.

 

[Blog Editor: The rest of the Warner email is further resource and product promotion which I will not post. Except the promotional for a teaching video entitled, “The Half Truth of the Islamic Golden Age of Spain”.]

 

VIDEO: Bill Warner PhD: Half Truth of the Islamic Golden Age in Spain

 

Political Islam 

Published on Sep 16, 2017

+++

The Hate Machine: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Is Cashing in by Bashing Christians

 

By Dale Hurd

09-19-2017

CBN News

 

Once upon a time, the Southern Poverty Law Center served as a champion in the civil rights struggle. It’s said that the SPLC helped put the Ku Klux Klan out of business. Klan membership used to be in the millions. Today it’s only a few thousand.

 

But when you glance at the SPLC’s map of hate groups in America today, there are so many that one might think America is consumed with hate.

 

But is it?

 

Changing the Definition of ‘Hate’

 

When you’ve put the Klan out of business and won all your battles, but you’re not ready to close your doors, you’ve got to find new enemies to fight.

 

One of those new enemies is former Vanderbilt history professor Dr. Carol Swain. Swain grew up in the old South and fought poverty and racism to become a university professor. She’s an expert on white nationalism. But she has publicly attacked the SPLC, and Swain, a conservative Christian, found herself on the SPLC’s hate list as a supposed “apologist for white supremacists.”

 

Other SPLC targets have included Dr. Ben Carson – who was later removed from its hate list – female genital mutilation victim Hirsi Ali, and even small charities like the Ruth Institute, whose mission is to help families and children. The Ruth Institute said, “If this makes us a ‘hate group,’ so be it.”

 

The SPLC: A ‘Money-Making Machine’

 

Among the list of Christian groups on the SPLC’s Hate Map are many local churches. It’s usually because they oppose the gay agenda.

 

The list includes the Family Research Council. FRC Executive Vice President General Jerry Boykin doesn’t pull any punches, telling CBN News, “First of all, the SPLC, you have to understand, is probably one of the most evil groups in America. They’ve become a money-making machine and they’ve become an absolute Marxist, anarchist organization.”

 

Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group, is also on the list. Kerri Kupec, ADF legal counsel and communications director said, the Southern Poverty Law Center once did good work, “but the SPLC lost its way a long time ago.”

 

Nothing ‘Poor’ About the Southern Poverty Law Center

 

Kupec dismisses the SPLC as a “direct mail scam,” but marvels at the SPLC’s revenues, with assets listed at $315 million.

 

“I have never heard of a group with ‘poverty’ in its name that has so much money,” Kupec said.

 

Apple, JP Morgan, and actor George Clooney are just a few who have given millions to the SPLC; there’s so much money coming in that some of it is going into offshore investments, a red flag for some, but offshore investing among charities is not uncommon.

 

The Link to Violence

 

What is more disturbing is what the SPLC’s opponents call a link to deadly violence against Christians and conservatives.

 

On August 15, 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins stormed into the Family Research Council’s Washington offices intending to kill. He wounded the building manager before he was stopped. A bullet hole still remains in a console in the lobby.

 

After his arrest, Corkins told the FBI where he heard about the Family Research Council’s Washington offices. On FBI video of his interrogation, Corkins says, “Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups. I found them online, did a little bit of research, went to the website, stuff like that.”

 

Boykin adds, “Our people know coming here, based on reality and based on what happened here, they’re taking a risk.”

 

James T Hodgkinson, who shot House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and injured several others at a congressional softball practice this year, had “liked” the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Facebook page.

 

The SPLC later admitted, “We’re aware that the SPLC was among hundreds of groups that the man identified as the shooter ‘liked’ on Facebook. I want to be as clear as I can possibly be: The SPLC condemns all forms of violence.”

 

Is the SPLC Spreading Hate?

 

But after these attacks, some are asking the obvious: Does the Southern Poverty Law Center spread hate?

 

The SPLC did not respond to our invitation to be a part of this story and refute the claims made against it, but publicly remains unapologetic. The SPLC has stated repeatedly that their listing of Christian groups who oppose the LGBT agenda “is completely unrelated to religion, Christianity or the Bible. These groups are listed because they repeatedly lie in an effort to defame LGBT people.”

 

In 2007 former SPLC spokeman Mark Potok told a conference in Michigan, “I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them.”

 

  1. James Kennedy Ministries, also on the hate list, is suing the SPLC, and the charitable arm of Amazon, AmazonSmile, for dropping the ministry from their lists of eligible religious charities.

 

The news media has begun using the SPLC’s hate map in stories about racism and bigotry, giving the map even more clout and credibility.

 

CNN published the list under the headline “Here Are All the Hate Groups Active in Your Area” before taking it down.

 

Forty-seven conservative groups and Sen. James Lankford have written the media demanding that it stop using the SPLC hate map as a source.

 

Boykin said, “The SPLC has no authority, except the authority they’ve given themselves, to build a hate map or to list people or organizations as haters.”

 

But there is no sign the Southern Poverty Law Center is changing course when the Left supports it so strongly, the news media relies it, and the donations keep rolling in.

_______________

Left’s Free Speech War

Waged with Financial Institutions and Social Media

 

John R. Houk

© September 22, 2017

______________

Strategy To Survive The Silencing Storm

 

Copyright © 2017 CSPI Publishing, All rights reserved.


You are receiving this, as you are a member of the CSPI Community or a friend of Dr. Bill Warner, PhD. We ask that you share this with a friend or colleague. Please visit us at www.politicalislam.com.

Our mailing address is:

CSPI Publishing

PO Box 90806

Nashville, Tn 37209

______________

The Hate Machine: How the Southern Poverty Law Center Is Cashing in by Bashing Christians

 

© 2017 The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc., A nonprofit 501 (c)(3) Charitable Organization.

 

CBN News

 

Social Censorship and Racism


John R. Houk

© January 16, 2017

 

I have had my issues of being placed in Facebook and G+ jail under the (FALSE) accusation of posting inappropriate thoughts that violate social community rules. I am guessing many other Conservatives and Counterjihad writers sharing the truth without profanity have also experienced a social ban here and there. Social Ban = Social Jail.

 

The social network via Yahoo Groups (ccpga – Restricted Group) posted a link that exposes this jail phenomenon. Sadly Yahoo Groups are not as active as other social groups; nevertheless, the relatively small members at ccpga are quite active. It is there where I found a link to Constitution.com exposing the idiotic censorship at Facebook.

 

The Facebook poster – Grant Phillips – wrote about the racism involved with teenage Black adults torturing a White disabled mentally challenged young man. Phillips’ thought was pertaining to the MSM not being outraged by “kids” torturing a disabled White man yet contrarily the MSM does not get steamed by the Obama Administration alerting the public to Islamic Terrorism after a terrorist murderer shouts Allahu Akbar. Or calling Black protesters destroying, looting and burning cities are just misunderstood people. Implying Black-Americans need to demonstrate such frustration because of years of oppression. The reality is such actions make Americans displeased and contribute more to racist reactions to show their displeasure.

 

Anyway, read the Constitution.com article which should go viral to protest Facebook censorship and I dare say a cover-up.

 

JRH 1/16/17

Please Support NCCR

*******************

Facebook Bans Yet Another Conservative Viral Post that Only Tells the Truth

 

By Onan Coca 

January 15, 2017

Constitution.com

 

About a week ago a gentleman named Grant Phillips, who in and of himself is not famous or celebrated for any particular reason, posted an important and thoughtful note to Facebook.

 

His argument, written in the wake of the vile Chicago hate crime that saw four African-American adults livestream their kidnapping, abuse, and torture of a special needs white man, was well-written and completely factual. Here’s what Phillips had to say:

 

If you yell “f*ck white people” while torturing a special needs white kid, the city of Chicago won’t call it a hate crime and the superintendent will say it’s “just a bunch of kids.” If you yell “Allahu Akbar” right before blowing yourself up in a public area, POTUS won’t call you an Islamic terrorist. If you burn down cities and destroy property, you’re a misunderstood protester fighting oppression. But if you voted for Trump, you’re a violent racist and white supremacist.

 

Facebook to Phillips – Removed post

facebook-to-phillips-removed-post

 

Mr. Phillips’ post quickly went viral reaching over 100,000 people without much pomp or circumstance, a true miracle considering Mr. Phillips lack of fame. The quick expansion of the message must have bothered someone at Facebook, though, because within a few days Facebook had removed the post for violating “community standards.” Apparently, Facebook’s community standards doesn’t appreciate completely honest, factual, and researchable information.

 

Now, on Facebook, Phillips and his friends, along with many other conservatives, are responding by reposting his message far and wide across the social media network. One of his friends argued, “Facebook is showing an increasing proclivity for punishing Conservative views. Let’s not let them get away with it.”

 

I agree, let’s make sure that Facebook knows we won’t let them get away with their suppression of conservative views.

___________________

Social Censorship and Racism

John R. Houk

© January 16, 2017

_________________

Facebook Bans Yet Another Conservative Viral Post that Only Tells the Truth

 

Onan Coca

 

Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Liberty Alliance media group. He’s also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children. You can find his writing all over the web.

 

Copyright © 2017 The Constitution. All Rights Reserved.

 

Geller: ‘Fake News’? Left-Wing War on Conservative Websites: Facebook, Google, LA Times, Obama Take Aim


daffy-duck-leftist-communication

I posted yesterday about Leftists using the Fake News meme to discredit Conservatives, in that case pertaining primarily to Pizzagate. Pamela Geller writes about the Leftist Conspiracy to shut down any news that disagrees with Leftist ideals or values as Fake News. (As if Leftist values is representative of traditional American values. I call hogwash!)

 

JRH 12/6/16

Please Support NCCR

*****************

Geller: ‘Fake News’? Left-Wing War on Conservative Websites: Facebook, Google, LA Times, Obama Take Aim

 

By PAMELA GELLER

6 Dec 2016

Breitbart – Big Government

 

The left-wing elites and their running dogs in the enemedia are in one of their fictional publicity campaigns that they masquerade as urgent news. Their latest terror is “fake news sites.”

 

The New York Times reported shortly after the election that Google and Facebook “have faced mounting criticism over how fake news on their sites may have influenced the presidential election’s outcome.”

 

That was fake news: “fake news” didn’t influence the presidential election’s outcome, all too real news about the wrong direction in which our nation was headed under Barack Obama did. Nevertheless, the Times said that “those companies responded by making it clear that they would not tolerate such misinformation by taking pointed aim at fake news sites’ revenue sources.”

 

How would they do that? “Google kicked off the action on Monday afternoon when the Silicon Valley search giant said it would ban websites that peddle fake news from using its online advertising service. Hours later, Facebook, the social network, updated the language in its Facebook Audience Network policy, which already says it will not display ads in sites that show misleading or illegal content, to include fake news sites.”

 

A Facebook spokesman explained: “We have updated the policy to explicitly clarify that this applies to fake news. Our team will continue to closely vet all prospective publishers and monitor existing ones to ensure compliance.”

 

The “fake news” controversy has become a huge international story, with the Los Angeles Times among those leading the charge with headlines such as “Want to keep fake news out of your newsfeed? College professor creates list of sites to avoid”; “Fake news writers: ‘Hillary Clinton, here are your deplorables’”; and “Fake news writers abuse the 1st Amendment and endanger democracy for personal profit.

 

There is conspiracy theory and there is conspiracy fact, and what we have on our hands is one mother of a left-wing conspiracy parading as a right wing conspiracy. You can’t make this stuff up. It’s diabolical. In the run-up to the election, I reported on a number of fake conservative new sites created by left-wing operatives in order to discredit the conservatives’ news sites. If you have a bogus conservative site, it makes a conservative site look questionable. “News sites” like the Baltimore Gazette and the National Report were dropping hoaxes for months to discredit conservatives who might pick up the story.

 

I always understood that the objective was to taint the conservative newssphere. Sites were created to spread disinformation and shame the right-wingers who jumped on it. This is classic disinformation. It’s always games, games, games… from the people who brought you Soros’ rent-a-mob — rioting, looting and destruction in cities, etc. even going so far as to risk a few deaths all for the cause. But what I didn’t see coming is their ultimate goal: the shut-down of free speech. The left wants to crush free speech, which has been in their cross-hairs for some time now.

 

The left is always preaching about true democracy, but they seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as they can. And they’re always harping about “controversial” matters that either don’t exist or are fabricated, or are of little import.

 

If a blogger or news writer gets a story wrong, does that designate him or her, or his or her site, as “fake news”? If that’s the case, they’ll have to shut down the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, etc. They get things wrong all the time. Every article written about my colleagues, my work, or myself is fake. Most of what they wrote and didn’t write about the Orlando mass slaughter at the gay nightclub was disinformation and deception.

 

If you issue a correction, does that somehow remove the fake news scarlet letter? This is all a big fat lie — it is an end-run around the First Amendment, and it’s disastrous. It is indeed true that Facebook has too much power, but banning “fake news” sites is hardly the solution. That’s Zuckerberg’s fix-it? It would be funny if it weren’t so Hitlerian. Facebook has too much power. Its news curators, mini-Goebbelians — are more frightening than Kafka’s antagonists. Facebook should be broken up like Ma Bell was. Facebook doesn’t decide what’s good and what’s forbidden. Left-wing fascists do not and must not decide what news people can and cannot see. But that’s exactly what we are seeing on Facebook.

__________________

Copyright © 2016 Breitbart

 

European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech


Voltaire on Free Speech & Rulers

Intro to ‘European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech

Edited by John R. Houk

May 3, 2016

 

I just finished an anti-Multiculturalist post inspired by the Gatestone Institute that focused on the EU hammering Counterjihad journalist Ingrid Carlqvist (of Sweden) and a bit of fund raising – “Multiculturalism Destroying Europe’s Culture”. As I was doing my daily Internet surfing I discovered another Gatestone Institute article by Soeren Kern exposing the fact that the big dogs of Social Media are in complete agreement with the European Union on squelching Free Speech exposing the dark side of Islam which is currently showing up Muslim refugees and immigrants.

 

The Social Media giants spoken of in the article:

 

 

 

 

  • Microsoft: Bill Gates and Paul Allen are the original names connected to Microsoft, but then Steve Ballmer became the shot caller for the computer giant amassing billions of dollars in fortune (as in over $20 billion with a “B”). Apparently Satya Nadella the big dog now. Microsoft influence in Social Media is its fingerprint on PCs and the Internet. Here’s a decent synopsis of their influence:

 

… Microsoft are almost expected to have an enviable social media presence. They have led the way to the future, so social media is an important aspect of their strategy as a trailblazing company that creates and innovates. They have created web browsers, operating systems, office applications and web services almost dominating the internet and giving people the ability to be immersed into a technological world. (How Microsoft Uses Social Media [CASE STUDY]; By CASEY FLEISCHMANN; LinkHumans.com)

 

Interestingly the owners of YouTube which is Google, are not talked about by Soeren Kern. Google was founded by Larry Page and Sergey Brin while they were Ph.D. students at Stanford University:

 

After the company’s IPO in 2004, founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page and CEO Eric Schmidt requested that their base salary be cut to $1. Subsequent offers by the company to increase their salaries were turned down, primarily because their main compensation continues to come from owning stock in Google. (Google; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 31 May 2016, at 22:47.)

 

Apparently “Google” is now an amalgam multiple corporations with a publically held corporation at the top being Alphabet:

 

Silicon Valley – and Wall Street – have a new king. Alphabet, the company formerly known as Google, looks set to become the world’s largest publicly traded company …

 

 

Commercially, when we say Alphabet, we really mean Google. The old company still represents the vast majority of Alphabet’s revenues, and almost all of its major businesses (including search, maps, YouTube, advertising and Android) still sit under Google and its new chief executive, Sundar Pichai. The rest of Alphabet may represent the bets on the industries of the future but for today, it’s Google that pays the bills. (How Alphabet became the biggest company in the world; By Alex Hern; The Guardian; 2/2/16 03.08 EST)

 

Wikipedia on Alphabet Inc.:

 

Alphabet Inc. (commonly known as Alphabet, and frequently informally referred to as Google) is an American multinational conglomerate created in 2015 as the parent company of Google and several other companies previously owned by Google.[5][6][7][8][9] The company is based in Mountain View, California and headed by Google’s co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, with Page serving as CEO and Brin as President.[10] The reorganization of Google into Alphabet was completed on October 2, 2015.[11] Alphabet’s portfolio encompasses several industries, including technology, life sciences, investment capital, and research. Some of its subsidiaries include GoogleCalicoGVGoogle CapitalX, and Google Fiber. Some of the subsidiaries of Alphabet have altered their names since leaving Google—Google Ventures becoming GV, Google Life Sciences becoming Verily and Google X becoming just X. Following the restructuring Page became CEO of Alphabet while Sundar Pichai took his position as CEO of Google.[5][6] Shares of Google’s stock have been converted into Alphabet stock, which trade under Google’s former ticker symbols of “GOOG” and “GOOGL”.

 

The establishment of Alphabet was prompted by a desire to make the core Google Internet services business “cleaner and more accountable” while allowing greater autonomy to group companies that operate in businesses other than Internet services.[6][12] (Alphabet Inc.; Wikipedia; page was last modified on 1 June 2016, at 13:41.)

 

In the 21st century, money is power. People this is a lot of power pushing Multicultural ideology to the detriment of Western culture in Europe and America.

 

JRH 6/3/16

Please Support NCCR

*****************

European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech

 

By Soeren Kern

June 3, 2016 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the European Union’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the EU itself.

 

  • Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours — as “Orwellian.”

 

  • “By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people… into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.'” — Douglas Murray.

 

  • In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation.

 

The European Union (EU), in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, has unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe.

 

Proponents of the initiative argue that in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, a crackdown on “hate speech” is necessary to counter jihadist propaganda online.

 

Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the EU’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

 

Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours, and replaced with “counter-narratives” — as “Orwellian.”

 

The “code of conduct” was announced on May 31 in a statement by the European Commission, the unelected administrative arm of the European Union. A summary of the initiative follows:

 

“By signing this code of conduct, the IT companies commit to continuing their efforts to tackle illegal hate speech online. This will include the continued development of internal procedures and staff training to guarantee that they review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.

 

“The IT companies will also endeavor to strengthen their ongoing partnerships with civil society organisations who will help flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct. The IT companies and the European Commission also aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives [emphasis added], new ideas and initiatives, and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”

 

Excerpts of the “code of conduct” include:

 

“The IT Companies share the European Commission’s and EU Member States’ commitment to tackle illegal hate speech online. Illegal hate speech, as defined by the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law and national laws transposing it, means all conduct publicly inciting to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin….

 

“The IT Companies support the European Commission and EU Member States in the effort to respond to the challenge of ensuring that online platforms do not offer opportunities for illegal online hate speech to spread virally. The spread of illegal hate speech online not only negatively affects the groups or individuals that it targets, it also negatively impacts those who speak out for freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination in our open societies and has a chilling effect on the democratic discourse on online platforms.

 

“While the effective application of provisions criminalizing hate speech is dependent on a robust system of enforcement of criminal law sanctions against the individual perpetrators of hate speech, this work must be complemented with actions geared at ensuring that illegal hate speech online is expeditiously acted upon by online intermediaries and social media platforms, upon receipt of a valid notification, in an appropriate time-frame. To be considered valid in this respect, a notification should not be insufficiently precise or inadequately substantiated.

 

“The IT Companies, taking the lead on countering the spread of illegal hate speech online, have agreed with the European Commission on a code of conduct setting the following public commitments:

 

  • “The IT Companies to have in place clear and effective processes to review notifications regarding illegal hate speech on their services so they can remove or disable access to such content. The IT companies to have in place Rules or Community Guidelines clarifying that they prohibit the promotion of incitement to violence and hateful conduct.

 

  • “The IT Companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.

 

  • “The IT Companies and the European Commission, recognising the value of independent counter speech against hateful rhetoric and prejudice, aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives, new ideas and initiatives and supporting educational programs that encourage critical thinking.”

 

The agreement also requires Internet companies to establish a network of “trusted reporters” in all 28 EU member states to flag online content that “promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct.”

 

The EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, Vĕra Jourová, has defended the initiative:

 

“The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech. Social media is unfortunately one of the tools that terrorist groups use to radicalize young people and racists use to spread violence and hatred. This agreement is an important step forward to ensure that the internet remains a place of free and democratic expression, where European values and laws are respected. I welcome the commitment of worldwide IT companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary.”

 

Others disagree. The National Secular Society (NSS) of the UK warned that the EU’s plans “rest on a vague definition of ‘hate speech’ and risk threatening online discussions which criticize religion.” It added:

 

“The agreement comes amid repeated accusations from ex-Muslims that social media organizations are censoring them online. The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain has now begun collecting examples from its followers of Facebook censoring ‘atheist, secular and ex-Muslim content’ after false ‘mass reporting’ by ‘cyber Jihadists.’ They have asked their supporters to report details and evidence of any instances of pages and groups being ‘banned [or] suspended from Facebook for criticizing Islam and Islamism.'”

 

NSS communications officer Benjamin Jones said:

 

“Far from tackling online ‘cyber jihad,’ the agreement risks having the exact opposite effect and entrapping any critical discussion of religion under vague ‘hate speech’ rules. Poorly-trained Facebook or Twitter staff, perhaps with their own ideological bias, could easily see heated criticism of Islam and think it is ‘hate speech,’ particularly if pages or users are targeted and mass reported by Islamists.”

 

In an interview with Breitbart London, the CEO of Index on Censorship, Jodie Ginsburg, said:

 

“Hate speech laws are already too broad and ambiguous in much of Europe. This agreement fails to properly define what ‘illegal hate speech’ is and does not provide sufficient safeguards for freedom of expression.

 

“It devolves power once again to unelected corporations to determine what amounts to hate speech and police it — a move that is guaranteed to stifle free speech in the mistaken belief this will make us all safer. It won’t. It will simply drive unpalatable ideas and opinions underground where they are harder to police — or to challenge.

 

“There have been precedents of content removal for unpopular or offensive viewpoints and this agreement risks amplifying the phenomenon of deleting controversial — yet legal — content via misuse or abuse of the notification processes.”

 

A coalition of free speech organizations, European Digital Rights and Access Now, announced their decision not to take part in future discussions with the European Commission, saying that “we do not have confidence in the ill-considered ‘code of conduct’ that was agreed.” A statement warned:

 

“In short, the ‘code of conduct’ downgrades the law to a second-class status, behind the ‘leading role’ of private companies that are being asked to arbitrarily implement their terms of service. This process, established outside an accountable democratic framework, exploits unclear liability rules for online companies. It also creates serious risks for freedom of expression, as legal — but controversial — content may well be deleted as a result of this voluntary and unaccountable take-down mechanism.

 

“This means that this ‘agreement’ between only a handful of companies and the European Commission is likely in breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (under which restrictions on fundamental rights should be provided for by law), and will, in practical terms, overturn case law of the European Court of Human Rights on the defense of legal speech.”

 

Janice Atkinson, an independent MEP for the South East England region, summed it up this way: “It’s Orwellian. Anyone who has read 1984 sees its very re-enactment live.”

 

Even before signing on to the EU’s code of conduct, social media sites have been cracking down on free speech, often at the behest of foreign governments.

 

In September 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel was overheard on a live microphone confronting Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on what he was doing to prevent criticism of her open-door immigration policies.

 

In January 2016, Facebook launched an “Online Civil Courage Initiative” aimed at Facebook users in Germany and geared toward “fighting hate speech and extremism on the Internet.”

 

Writing for Gatestone Institute, British commentator Douglas Murray noted that Facebook’s assault on “racist” speech “appears to include anything critical of the EU’s current catastrophic immigration policy.” He wrote:

 

“By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people (who, it must be stressed, are opposed to Chancellor Merkel’s policies) into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.’ This is a policy that will do its part in pushing Europe into a disastrous future.

 

Facebook has also set its sights on Gatestone Institute affiliated writers. In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation. Abu Toameh wrote:

 

“It’s still a matter of censorship. They decide what’s acceptable. Now we have to be careful about what we post and what we share. Does this mean we can’t criticize Arab governments anymore?”

 

In June 2016, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.” In an editorial, Gatestone wrote:

 

“After enormous grassroots pressure from Gatestone’s readers, the Swedish media started reporting on Facebook’s heavy-handed censorship. It backfired, and Facebook went into damage-control mode. They put Ingrid’s account back up — without any explanation or apology. Ironically, their censorship only gave Ingrid’s video more attention.

 

“Facebook and the EU have backed down — for now. But they’re deadly serious about stopping ideas they don’t like. They’ll be back.”

 

Facebook Censorship & Ingrid Carlqvist

This week, the EU, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe. The next day, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.”

 

 

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos/Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter. His first book, Global Fire, will be out in 2016.

 

_______________________________

© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

 

Blog Editor: If GI asks me to remove this post I will comply. If you wish to share anything other than a link you had better GI permission.