Mediaboss Marketing

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

"1984" had its Ministry of Truth, the Soviets had their Gulag. Todays Russians, like their kindred spirits among the American left, may be less overt in policing speech but dont let a less visible barbarity fool anyone into believing that the goal is any less of an assault on free speech.

Current Russian law punishes speech or public engagement that questions Russias invasion of Ukraine or even protests that call it a war. As University of Massachusetts Amherst Associate Professor Lauren McCarthy puts it, "public activities aimed at discrediting the use of Russias military," become "a criminal offense if committed twice in a year."

WAPO ED BOARD ON DISINFORMATION GOVERNANCE BOARD: DHS ERRORS 'A SHOWCASE IN SOME OF THE WORST PRACTICES'

Russian law also criminalizes "spreading false information about the Russian military." What qualifies as misinformation? Apparently, calling Russias "special operation" in Ukraine by its more common name war qualifies as a crime.

In order to have a police force large enough to spy on an entire nation, Russia has ominously created "anonymous denunciation websites." The Venetian Doges, who encouraged citizens to rat out other citizens by dropping anonymous notes in the mouth of the lion (Called: bocche dei leone) would be jealous of todays technology.

In America, we have not yet granted government the police power to criminalize misinformation, but not for trying. The American Left believes that the public should be protected from anyone who questions COVID-19 orthodoxy.

If a scientist, or an elected official, questions evidence for forcing booster vaccines on teenagers, the speech police want those questions forbidden.

Recently, I went to the Senate floor to protest a policy that commands booster COVID vaccines for the pages, pointing out that there is no scientific evidence that a booster lessens hospitalization or death for teenagers and it certainly doesnt prevent transmission.

WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan agrees with me and has stated:"There is no evidence right now that healthy children or healthy adolescents need boosters. No evidence at all."

And yet, the Democrat and Republican overlords actually forced the pages to leave the Senate floor when I spoke, so that their young minds wouldnt be tainted with what I presume they felt was disinformation. Only when I threatened to reveal the names of those involved in this ambush on Constitutional speech did they consent to allow a few pages back on the floor.

The Pandemic has caused an epidemic of efforts to police speech. The Biden Administration has, for now, shuttered the Disinformation Governance Board.

But dont for a moment accept that the lefts infatuation with censorship is over. If fact, the left is quite peeved that everyone seems to have misinterpreted their noble goals.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas whined in committee that Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump had government agencies doing exactly the same type of speech monitoring. If true, that just means the problem is more widespread than we thought.

To Mayorkas and the left, they want us to believe that they will be the nice speech police. In fact, they really want to farm out the police work to big tech. Axioss Felix Salmon recognizes this conceit when he calls Big Tech "the fourth branch of government," for effectively shutting down President Trumps access to social media.

Former White House Press Secretary Psaki admitted as much, when she recently "urged Facebook to move more expeditiously to find and remove misleading content before it is consumed by a large number of users," National Review reported.

Psaki elaborated that what the White House seeks is "robust enforcement strategy" that combines the reach of Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat to "provide transparency about the rules." By rules, we must assume, she means censorship that will be guided by Big Brother but enforced by Big Tech.

According to Psaki, the government will helpfully flag the problematic posts as disinformation and ask the Facebook to police away the bad information.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

What could go wrong?

I wish this authoritarian urge to censor speech would die along with the Disinformation Governance Board. But I fear the impulse to regulate human behavior via unlimited regulation of the economic sphere has simply found its way down the slippery slope to regulating speech.

For sure, there are still liberal minds who recognize the dangers of censorship but the once vaunted and revered concept of free speech is under assault like never before. Journalist Matt Taibbi writes eloquently on the subject: "The traditional liberal approach to the search for truth, which stresses skepticism and free-flowing debate, is giving way to a reactionary movement that Plato himself would have loved, one that believes knowledge is too dangerous for the rabble and must be tightly regulated by a priesthood of experts. Its anti-democratic, un-American, and naturally unites the residents of even the most extreme opposite ends of our national political spectrum."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

For now, Bidens Ministry of Truth is dead but free speech advocates on the right and the left need to zealously guard and defend a right so precious that its not an overstatement to claim that our free society depends on it.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM SENATOR RAND PAUL

See the article here:
Biden's censors want Russian-style speech controls and they haven't given up - Fox News

As the row over Floridas controversial Dont Say Gay laws in school continues, a high-school graduates moving commencement speech to work around censorship has taken social media by storm. By replacing gay for curly hair, Zander Moriczs graduation speech has left people in awe and drew nationwide attention to his fight for the LGBTQIA+ community.

Taking to stage Sunday, Moriczs speech about the law proponents dubbed the Parental Rights in Education Act, which bans teachers and students from discussing their gender identity, went viral. The teenager, who is an openly gay class president, delivered a witty and evocative speech at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall in Sarasota without breaking the law but only bending it to have a greater impact.

I must discuss a very public part of my identity. This characteristic has probably become the first thing you think of when you think of me as a human being, he said. As you know, I have curly hair, Moricz said, taking off his tasselled cap on the stage at Ospreys Pine View School for the Gifted.

I used to hate my curls, he continued. I spent mornings and nights embarrassed of them, trying to desperately straighten this part of who I am. But the daily damage of trying to fix myself became too much to endure, the 18-year-old said.

Earlier in May, Moricz, the youngest public plaintiff in the lawsuit over Floridas controversial law, had tweeted that his schools principal had warned him that his microphone would be cut off at graduation if he referenced his activism in his speech.

There are going to be so many kids with curly hair who need a community like Pine View and they will not have one, he underlined in his speech. Instead, theyll try to fix themselves so that they can exist in Floridas humid climate, he quipped, making his point clear.

Known for his activism and fighting spirit against the law, Moricz ended his speech by encouraging others to use their power to fight back. His intelligent speech was only met with applause, cheering at the venue but even on the internet.

I knew that the threat to cut the mic was very real, so I wasnt going to let that happen and I just had to be clever about it, Moricz told Good Morning America. But I shouldnt have had to be because I dont exist in a euphemism and I deserve to be celebrated as is.

Moricz, who will be attending Harvard University in the fall, told the news outlet that Florida law is designed to make schools unsafe for LGBTQ+ people.

Continue reading here:
Florida teen uses curly hair instead of gay to dodge censorship in commencement speech - The Indian Express

Exclusive:

Kate Smurthwaite, a left-wing political comedian, was a guest on Piers Morgan's Talk TV show UNCENSORED this week where she alleged she was 'censored' however the host has denied her claims

Image: Piers Morgan Uncensored / YouTube)

Comedian and activist Kate Smurthwaite claims she was "censored" during her appearance on Piers Morgan's show Uncensored.

She says producers warned her not to get 'too personal' with the host and repeat previous criticisms of his "obsession" with Meghan Markle.

However, Piers has denied this and said in a tweet: "I just checked and nobody tried to censor you - we dont censor guests, thats the point of the show."

TalkTV was also contacted for comment.

Last night I was a guest on Piers Morgans Talk TV show UNCENSORED. As a left-wing political comedian, I do it for the money and because I like to treat the viewers to a well-reasoned counterargument.

The producer pencilled the slot into my diary last week and rang in the morning to let me know what topics would be discussed and ask what my views were. Standard procedure.

After their morning meeting, I had a confirmation call too. They were looking forward to having me on. The only thing wastheyd like me not to mention a couple of the things I had said in our earlier conversation. A remarkable request for a show that is literally called uncensored.

Youre probably wondering what they didnt want me to say. The topic under discussion was Meghan Markle. Thats what most of his shows are about in case, like 99.9% of the British public, you werent watching.

They didnt want me to get too personal with Morgan. They didnt want me criticising or seeking to explain his "vindictive obsession" with her.

Image:

The main thing they didnt want me to say was: You know that no matter how many hours you spend sl*****g her off, shes still not going to s**g you?. True. Funny. Insightful. Whats not to love?

I dont blame the producer. The job of producing a show like this is 95% about censoring. By which I mean selecting which voices and viewpoints will be aired and hence, inevitably, which ones wont. I might graciously use the term editing.

In my opinion, the issue is that Piers, and his peers, on Talk TV, GB News and, across the pond, Fox News cry censorship any time an editorial decision goes against their point of view.

Image:

On the same show, Morgan was using the new c-word to describe schools which have taken To Kill A Mockingbird off the English literature curriculum.

The book has not been burned in the streets, nor removed from libraries, students are not being rounded up and sent to prison camps for reading it. School children are simply not going to be forced to read it.

Surely a victory for their freedoms?

Image:

Get all the biggest showbiz news straight to your inbox. Sign up for the free Mirror Showbiz newsletter.

Censorship, actual censorship, is a real human rights problem around the world. Voices like those of Ai Weiwei and Raif Badawi being silenced through prison sentences and state-sponsored violence. If the man had any idea what that was like he wouldnt appropriate the word for his own editorial battles.

This makes Piers Morgans interest in free speech appear purely hypocritical, in my view. If, as he has subsequently claimed on Twitter, there was no effort to censor me, his producers would not have warned me beforehand to not get "too personal" with Piers when discussing the topic of Meghan.

I'd like to discuss his childish obsession with Markle. And then whilst I'm about it his nasty attitude towards some other celebrities and the way that the right wing media will cry censorship when it suits them and participate in the exact same thing when it doesnt.

Ive got plenty to say.

Mirror Online has contacted Piers' representative for further comment.

Do you have a story to sell? Get in touch with us at webcelebs@mirror.co.uk or call us direct at 0207 29 33033.

Read More

Read More

See the article here:
'I went on Piers Morgan's show Uncensored - and they tried to censor me on Meghan' - The Mirror

Amid a historic and ever-worsening humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, Facebook recently added the head of one of the countrys most important domestic aid groups to its Dangerous Individuals terror blacklist, The Intercept has learned.

Internal company materials reviewed by The Intercept show that Matiul Haq Khalis head of the Afghan Red Crescent Society, or ARCS; son of a famed mujahedeen commander, Mohammad Yunus Khalis; and a former Taliban negotiator was added to the companys stringent censorship list in late April, joining a group of thousands of people and organizations deemed too dangerous to freely discuss or use the platform, including alleged terrorists, hate groups, drug cartels, and mass murderers. But Facebooks designation now means that the list, ostensibly created and enforced to stop offline harm, could disrupt the work of a globally recognized organization working to ease the immiseration of tens of millions of civilians.

After the collapse of the U.S.-backed government and withdrawal of American military forces, Khalis was named president of the organization, which helps provide health care, food, and other humanitarian aid to civilians there since its founding in 1934. In a country where half the population is going hungry and American sanctions threaten a total economic collapse, the ARCS is a bulwark against even greater suffering. Following Khaliss addition to the Dangerous Individuals list under its most restrictive Tier 1 category for terroristsdue to his Taliban affiliation, the over2 billion Facebook and Instagram users around the world are now barred from praising, supporting, or representing Khalis; this means even an anodyne photo of him at an official ARCS event, quotation of remarks, or positive mention of him in the context of the organizations aid work would risk deletion, as would any attempt on his part to use the companys platform to communicate, either in Afghanistan or abroad.

The Afghan Red Crescent continues to provide lifesaving assistance across the country, to the most vulnerable people in the country, working in all provinces, said Anita Dullard, spokesperson with the International Committee of the Red Cross. Theyre dealing with a range of things including severe drought, Covid, economic hardship, and working to support the healthcare system in Afghanistan. We work closely with Afghan Red Crescent to ensure that we can deliver humanitarian assistance.

A senior official with a major international aid organization in Afghanistan, who spoke with The Intercept on the condition of anonymity due to avoid jeopardizing operations in the country, described ARCS as one of the major humanitarian actors delivering services to a growing number of people in need and a huge contributor to the collective humanitarian efforts pursued in conjunction with other NGOs. This aid official expressed surprise that Khalis would be singled out for censorship despite his Taliban affiliation, saying he had never held a gun, and expressed concern over the potential to impede lifesaving humanitarian work. For sure the ARCS is using Facebook as a tool of communication with the public, this source continued. If [the blacklisting] has an effect it will be negative for Afghanistan, they added.

Secretary General of the Afghan Red Crescent Society Mawlawi Matiul Haq Khalis, right, attends a handover ceremony for donated supplies in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Dec. 21, 2021.

Photo: Saifurahman Safi/Getty Images)

Facebooks designation of Khalis, considered in a vacuum, is unsurprising. The companys Dangerous Organizations and Individuals roster generally mirrors the foreign policy stances of the United States, blacklisting federally sanctioned and terror-designated entities like the Taliban as a matter of course while granting great latitude to Western allies. In Afghanistan, Facebooks near-total mimicry of State Department decision-making has meant that the ruling government of a sovereign country, as repressive of its own people and despised as it may still be in the U.S., is unable to freely use the internet to communicate with its citizenry. The U.S. government and Facebook share not only a common dilemma over how to treat the Taliban now that the group has won the war and assumed control of the country, but seem to be taking the same punitive approach to that matter. Just as the Biden administration continues to punish the Taliban at the expense of the people of Afghanistan by withholding billions of dollars in frozen cash, Facebook now sanctions the head of one of Afghanistans most important humanitarian organizations at a time when Afghans are selling their kidneys to avoid starvation. It goes without saying that the Red Crescent plays a crucial humanitarian role in Afghanistans ongoing armed conflicts, added Smith.

John Sifton, Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, told The Intercept that he doubted the blacklisting would have a significant impact on relief efforts inside the country, given the relatively small scope of the ARCS compared to larger international organizations. Its not going to somehow significantly impact their operations or outreach, he said. Its more illustrative of Facebook having a policy that doesnt make a lot of sense. Sifton questioned the extent to which letting people speak freely of Khalis would endanger anyone or anything. How is he dangerous? Hes like 65 years old. He has no militia. His father was a mujahedeen commander, but what is the problem here? Sifton pointed to groups that are actively using the platform to incite violence. There are hate guys in India that are spreading toxic anti-Muslim violence across Facebook, Hindu nationalist groups, hateful Buddhist groups in Burma, thats a real problem. Having Khalis online posting about how he cut the ribbon at a new hospital in Afghanistan, thats not part of the problem.

Facebook has at times defended the breadth of its blacklist by claiming, without evidence, that its legally required to censor discussion of certain entities in order to comply with U.S. sanctions law, though neither the ARCS nor Khalis are currently named in the Treasury or State Departments counterterrorism sanctions lists. And although the Taliban has an inarguably ugly human rights record and a long history of civilian brutalization, so do many governments left untouched by the Dangerous Organizations policy. The Dangerous Organizations and Individuals list is often criticized for its lack of flexibility and country-specific nuance, and though the company has shown that it is at times willing to make drastic exceptions, these exceptions generally also jibe with American policy determinations.

The fact that Twitter is doing the exact opposite tells you everything you need to know.

While Sifton is critical of Facebooks rigid censorship policies, he also assigns blame to scattershot and outdated federal anti-terror policies and dismissed the companys claims that it has any legal obligation to mimic them: The fact that Twitter is doing the exact opposite tells you everything you need to know. Sifton said that by following the absurdities of counterterrorism sanctions lists, Facebook is replicating the governments mistakes. While he emphasized that he was not defending the misogynist, authoritarian, rights-abusing Taliban, he questioned the notion that the aging mujahedeen of the 1980s still represent a danger to the global community. The Taliban was dangerous because they hosted Al Qaeda between 1996 and 2001, and Al Qaeda used their territory to plan 9/11 and all the guys who did that are dead, and all the Arabs they hosted are either dead or very old or at Guantnamo. To the extent that the Taliban writ large represents a genuine danger to Afghan civilians, its unclear how restricting global discussion of Khalis might help.

Facebook did not respond to a request for comment.

Khalis was added to the social networks blacklist alongside some two dozen other Taliban-affiliated individuals, including others in humanitarian or public health roles, like Afghanistans minister of public health, deputy minister of disaster management, and deputy minister of refugees. But unlike these latter offices, the ARCS is nongovernmental, part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement of humanitarian relief organizations.

In response to a request for comment, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies provided a statement from ARCS ActingSecretary General Mohammad Nabi Burhan, stating that the Taliban government has not affected the groups mission or ongoing work. The Afghan Red Crescent Society delivers impartial, neutral and independent humanitarian services across all provinces in Afghanistan, in its role as auxiliary to public authorities in accordance with the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, he wrote. Afghan Red Crescent Society has been operating under a new leadership since October 2021. It is not unusual for changes in leadership of a Red Cross or Red Crescent National Society to follow a change in leadership at a national level.

Read the original:
Facebook Bans Head of Afghanistan's Red Crescent Society - The Intercept

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

FIRST ON FOX: A conservative nonprofit is launching a new ad campaign targeting Big Tech over online censorship.

Common Sense Leadership Fund (CSLF), a conservative nonprofit, launched the new seven-figure ad buy on Monday, railing against two pieces of legislation making their way through Congress.

CSLF president Kevin McLaughlin told Fox News Digital the "last thing we need is the federal government codifying into law Big Techs ability to silence anyone they happen to disagree with politically."

NEW CONSERVATIVE GROUP TARGETS HASSAN, KELLY OVER DEMOCRATS $3.5 TRILLION SPENDING PUSH

Two bills targeted in the ad campaign are the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and Open App Markets Act. (istock)

The ad, first obtained by Fox News Digital and titled "Big Brother," focuses on the loopholes in two bills, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and Open App Markets Act, that loosely uses the word "safety."

One provision in the American Innovation and Choice Online Act creates a legal defense for tech companies potential censorship if the measure they implement is to "protect safety, user privacy, the security of non-public data, or the security of the covered platform."

A similar "digital safety" provision also exists in the Open App Markets Act.

"Dont have the right opinion? Censored!" the ad says. "Are your facts an inconvenient truth? Banned!"

"No, its not big brother. Its Twitter. Facebook. YouTube. Apple," the voice-over continues. "They do it behind closed doors and answer to no one."

CSLFs ad warns that the two bills "would enshrine their censorship power in federal law" and that "Big Tech needs tough regulation not more rules that allow them to control your online speech."

"Tell Congress to reject Senate Bill 2922 and 2710 or you might be next," the ad concludes.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer speaks to the media after a Democratic policy luncheon, Oct. 19, 2021, on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Conservative commentators warn that the bills would harm U.S. businesses by radically altering antitrust laws and changing ecommerce itself.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he wants to bring the American Innovation and Choice Online Act up by early summer.

Schumers move to bring the measure up for a vote comes the week after President Bidens disinformation board bit the dust.

See the original post here:
Conservative nonprofit launches ad campaign targeting bills over Big Tech censorship - Fox News