Mediaboss Marketing

House Judiciary Committee ChairmanJim Jordan(R-OH) is dangling the possibility of a subpoena to theWhite Houseto uncover records on how it "coerced and colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor speech."

Jordan's panel requested in April the White House turn over information on its relationships with private entities when it comes to allegedly thwartingspeech. However, the chairman is now rebuking Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president, for apparently trying to shift the request to the jurisdiction of executive branch agencies, claiming the records sought are unique to the Executive Office of the President, according to a Thursdaylettersent to White House chief of staff Jeff Zients.

"Accordingly, for the Committee to wholly and effectively fulfill its oversight obligations, the Committee must obtain documents and communications in the custody and control of the EOP," Jordan wrote in his letter, providing a June 29 deadline for compliance. "Please be advised that the Committee may be forced to resort to compulsory process if these requests remain outstanding."

Jordan added: "In short, there is already extensive evidence that the White House played a unique role in urging and directing social media companies to impose viewpoint-based censorship. Based on this evidence, and in light of the EOP's unique position within the executive branch, the Committee has good reason to believe that additional material exists in the EOP's custody and control that would help the Committee to understand the nature and extent of its involvement in this censorship scheme."

The Thursday letter cited unearthed emails showing that White House Digital Strategy Director Rob Flaherty, on several occasions, communicated with the likes of Facebook and Twitter in 2021 to advise the companies on content moderation, including on posts related toCOVID-19. The Biden administration as a whole has been accused by Republicans and conservative watchdogs of throttling speech in tandem with social media companies.

"Mr. Flaherty represented to companies that President Biden himself was the driving force behind these demands," Jordan wrote. "After accusing YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, of 'funneling' people into vaccine hesitancy by inadequately censoring material on its website, Mr. Flaherty remarked to Google that his concern was 'shared at the highest (and I mean the highest) levels of the WH,' prompting a company executive to respond that Google was working to 'address your concerns related to COVID-19 misinformation.'"

Jordan's demand to Zients, former counselor to the president, comes the same day theWashington Examinerreportedon how Biden's Department of Health and Human Services granted $500,000 to a university in Texas to fight "disinformation." Former President Donald Trump's HHS chief of staff, Brian Harrison, likened the program to "government censorship."

The White House did not return a request for comment.

Read the full article here.

View post:
Biden White House threatened with subpoena from Jim Jordan for ... - House Judiciary Committee

John Lydon told the 2012 organising committee, 'no f**** way. Don't need it, don't want it' (Getty Images)

The Sex Pistols turned down an invitation to perform at the Olympics opening ceremony because the organisers wanted to censor one of their most famous songs, John Lydon has revealed.

The Pistols were asked to perform their 1977 single Pretty Vacant but Lydon, formerly Johnny Rotten, would not have been allowed to sing vacant, with his provocative emphasis on the final syllable.

They tried to get us involved in the Olympics, Lydon confirmed. What they wanted was, theyre going to do this thing where celebrities go around the stadium on the back of flat-top lorries.

So there will be Naomi Campbell in a Vivienne Westwood dress, followed by Madness doing Baggy Trousers, and then the Pistols doing Pretty Vacant. But without the vay-cunt, just pretty and the word censored.

Lydons answer to the Locog organising committee was no fucking way. Dont need it, dont want it, he told the NME.

The punk star, 56, will play no part in the Summers festivities after this week saying that he wants no part in a web campaign to get a 35th anniversary re-release of The Sex Pistols God Save The Queen to number one during the week of the Diamond Jubilee.

The Closing Ceremony, called A Symphony Of British Music, would have followed the example of the 2006 Super Bowl half-time show, during which the NFL muted Sir Mick Jaggers microphone to mask suggestive lyrics in the bands songs Start Me Up and Rough Justice.

Although describing the censorship as absolutely ridiculous and completely unnecessary, the band complied.

The incident echoed the band's performance on The Ed Sullivan Show in 1967, when the host demanded the Stones change the lyrics to Lets Spend the Night Together. As ordered, Jagger sang let's spend some time together, but he rolled his eyes for effect.

Original post:
Sex Pistols turned down Olympics performance because organisers wanted to censor songs - Yahoo News

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s presence on social media and in the presidential race is set to challenge platforms' policies regarding speech and elevate the topic of censorship due to his vaccine skepticism and conspiracy theorizing.

His candidacy has already created a number of difficult situations for media outlets and tech platforms that feel pressure not to air his more controversial statements but also do not want to censor a politician.

GLAAD CEO SAYS TWITTER IS NOW 'A WEAPON AGAINST LGBTQ+ COMMUNITY'

"The tech companies are being more careful with their censorship now that Mr. Kennedy is running for office," a representative for Kennedy's campaign told the Washington Examiner. "However, he is still being censored by YouTube and perhaps more subtly on other platforms, though it is hard to tell since their algorithms are not transparent."

The representative specifically noted YouTube taking down an interview between psychologist Jordan Peterson and Kennedy. Google, which owns YouTube, said the interview had been removed for violated its rules against alleging that vaccines cause chronic side effects beyond those acknowledged by health authorities. Other interviews with Kennedy are still available on the video hosting platform.

Kennedy has long faced censorship on multiple platforms because of his commentary on vaccines. But his new candidacy has made it more complicated for social media to ban him or remove his content.

Most notably, Kennedy had been banned from Instagram in 2021 for spreading vaccine misinformation. But when he declared his candidacy in May, his account was reinstated in May, because Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, maintains a policy of not fact-checking political candidates and allowing candidates an equal platform. This policy became relevant earlier this year when former President Donald Trump was reinstated to Facebook after being banned for inciting violence at the Jan. 6 riots.

At the same time, Kennedy has found a welcome on Twitter, now owned by Elon Musk, who has sought to portray himself as a defender of free speech. The billionaire hosted a Twitter Space on June 5 with Kennedy.

Still, Kennedy has faced censorship as a candidate, especially for his views on vaccines.

ABC News, for example, took the unusual step of cutting out several segments of an interview with Kennedy in which he discussed his views on vaccines, citing "editorial judgment."

Controversy over Kennedy's commentary on vaccines exploded over the weekend after he appeared on the podcast of Joe Rogan, the popular interviewer who frequently criticizes the public health establishment. Amid the debate, Dr. Peter Hotez, a vaccine scientist, was pressured by Rogan to debate Kennedy on his podcast. Hotez declined, arguing that his appearance alongside Kennedy would legitimize his views.

"Anti-vaccine disinformation ... is now a lethal force in the United States. I offered to go on Joe Rogan but not to turn it into the Jerry Springer show with having RFK Jr. on," Hotez told MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan.

As Kennedy has clashed with social media and the news media, he has found an embrace among some conservatives who also have long complained about censorship and bias.

"Never before has a Kennedy been treated with such disrespect by media outlets, including when Ted Kennedy challenged Jimmy Carter in the 1980 primary," Dan Schneider, the vice president of the Media Research Center's Free Speech America, told the Washington Examiner. "Today's liberal-dominated platforms are working overtime to help Joe Biden secure a second term."

The media's representation of Kennedy is "superficial and lazy, resorting to easy slanders like 'conspiracy theorist,'" Kennedy's representative said.

Kennedy has consistently promoted anti-vaccine arguments through his organization Children's Health Defense, which publishes articles and newsletters against vaccination and was accused by researchers at the Observatory on Social Media at Indiana University of being the most prominent source of vaccine misinformation.

"Having a presidential candidate that's basically anti-vaccination and that's putting out potential misinformation could do a lot of damage," Dr. Davidson Hamer, a professor of global health at Boston University, told the Washington Examiner. "And not just to programs like COVID control but to routine childhood and adult immunizations."

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Hamer said Kennedy's claims need to be "handled cautiously" and that social media and news outlets need to provide context to Kennedy's claims while covering him.

Kennedy, in contrast, said his knowledge gives him an edge over those covering him. "It's almost impossible for anyone to interview me on vaccines," he claimed in an interview with CNN host Michael Smerconish, noting that he has spent many years writing and researching the subject compared to the reporters who may cover him.

Original Location: RFK Jr. campaign tests limits of speech and censorship in 2024 elections

Washington Examiner Videos

Read more from the original source:
RFK Jr. campaign tests limits of speech and censorship in 2024 ... - Colorado Springs Gazette

What are we skinning? Our duty to unabashedly, and without fail, praise every man of god who comes our way. Be it from the side, the front, but most especially from the rear.

Why are we skinning it? Because it appears that many are harbouring under the illusion that 'freedom of speech' is more than just an abstract, ornamental idea. They heretically assume that it should have practical and legal implications on our social fabric.

Oh, no. Oh, yes. Some people have nothing to do with the precious time God gave them to spend on this earth.

Speaking of which, how are YOU spending your time today? I'm peeling potatoes right now, actually.

What will do with them after that's done? I'm gonna gently but firmly rub them down with some lucious, stickly olive oil. After doing that for around 20-40 minutes, I will sprinkle some salt over their shiny golden contours and pop them into the oven with a hard, determined shove.

Sounds delectable. Yes, but it doesn't stop there.

Go on... I will crouch down in a supplicating position and gaze at the golden balls of goodness as they grow into softer yet strangely, also firmer versions of themselves, glistening gloriously under the oven bulb, as if to tease me with the juicy promise of the deliciousness that's yet to come.

And then? Then, after they're ready, I'll pop them out of the oven and shove a viscous, grey-white gloop made from a blend of butter, sour cream, shredded cheddar cheese, cooked bacon bits, chopped green onions, salt, and pepper. The effort would leave me feeling exhausted, yet strangely calm...

I can imagine. Alas, I would then have to return them for the over for the final phase of their Glorious Hardening.

Then you'll eat them, right? Yes. Sharing it only with myself and the spirit who watches over me.

Michael Jackson? Don't be absurd. I'm talking about Frans Il-Budaj, of course.

Ah yes. As patriotic as your pious devotion to the Maltese potato. I bow down in deference to the majestic spud that rises up from the soil to sweeten our mouths with its honeyed glory.

Is that all you're doing today, then? It's Sunday. The day of rest. Pounding those potatoes in and out of the oven takes it out of you, you know?

Do say: "The measure of any society's democratic credentials is surely rooted in its ability to secure freedom of express-- actually wait. No. Don't say anything. Ever."

Don't say: "This censorship thing sure delivers quite the nostalgic kick, huh?"

See the original post:
This censorship thing sure delivers quite the nostalgic kick, huh? - MaltaToday

Quietly published in the government gazette on April 6th by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the new regulation amended a law whose full title is the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. It is usually referred to as the Information Technology Rules 2021 or IT Rules 2021 for short.

Clear censorship

It is clear from the amendment that this ministry has a very one-sided view of digital media ethics because it creates a fact check unit of the central government with the arbitrary power to block or suppress any information that it deems to be false.

This amendment is a draconian one and is a clear censorship, said Dhanya Rajendran, the editor-in-chief of The News Minute and chairperson of Digipup, a consortium of Indian digital news outlets. Why should the government be the judge, the jury and the executioner?

Rajendran, who closely follows the central governments attempts to control news and information, was the author of a petition against the IT Rules 2021 that was filed with the Delhi High Court.

The IT Rules 2021 is already under legal purview, she said. Several cases have been filed against it in various courts saying that the rules are unconstitutional and that they are against freedom of expression. While these cases are still pending in the supreme court, the government is now trying to sneak in this new draconian amendment.

No checks and balances

Rajendran cites last Januarys use of the IT Rules to censor a BBC documentary entitled India: The Modi Question, describing how Modi used his power base in Gujarat to become prime minister. As soon as the documentary was released, the government invoked an emergency provision in Rule 16, Part III of the IT Rules 2021 to block access to the documentary on the grounds that it lacked in objectivity.

The IT Rules 2021 has already given the government emergency blocking powers, so why did it have to bring in a new amendment? she asked. To make online censorship even easier, many observers responded.

Overzealous intermediaries

The government has created grievance appellate committees to hear appeals against takedowns of content including journalistic content by social media intermediaries, as the big social media platforms are called. But no provisions ensure that these committees are independent, says Prateek Waghre, the policy director at the Internet Freedom Foundation, a New Delhi-based NGO that defends online freedoms in India.

There is also inadequate representation of civil society and members with expertise in areas such as online trust and safety [which] will affect their ability to engage with complex issues and questions that are bound to surface, Waghre told RSF.

In Waghres view, the new amendment simply enshrines government officials as arbiters of online free speech with no checks or balances. He is also concerned about an excess of zeal on the part of the platforms.

Given the lack of clarity and prevalence of an environment which has low tolerance for dissent, intermediaries may be overzealous in their interpretation of these additional due diligence requirements from the government, Waghre said.

Geeta Seshu, the founding editor of the Free Speech Collective, an online publication aimed at promoting free speech and the right to dissent, called the amendment part of the larger attempt to chip away at the freedom of online news media sites and social media platforms, which began with the IT Rules, 2021.

Arbitrary process

Seshu told RSF: It not only seeks to falsify published news that goes through a rigorous process of verification but also debunks and discredits it in the eyes of the public. Moreover, the process to determine this is arbitrary and opaque. The censor who stands over the shoulder of news sites and arbitrarily decides what is fake and what is bona fide will have a devastating chilling effect on press freedom.

Rajendran hopes the amendment will be struck down. This amendment has no place in a democracy, she said. As Orwell said, The really frightening thing about totalitarianism is not that it commits atrocities but that it attacks the concept of objective truth.

See the original post here:
As Modi visits Washington, DC, the Indian government is preparing ... - Reporters sans frontires