Archive for the ‘Censorship’ Category

Taming the tech giants is one thing. Giving free rein to censors quite another – The Guardian

Opposition to censorship should not be based on sympathy for the censored but fear of the censors. To loud applause, the UK government says it wants to implement the most far-reaching web regulation of any western democracy. Too few are noticing that the Conservatives answer to the question of how to curb online hate is to give its politicians excessive powers and make Paul Dacre the countrys internet censor-in-chief.

The online safety bill will not only tell Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok and search engines they must have systems to prevent illegal content but clamp down on legal but harmful posts. What does that mean? Commentators say the regulation of legal speech is in the bill to stop teenagers with anorexia being bombarded with unhealthy diet tips, or the algorithm sending suicide advice to people on the edge of taking their lives, or promoting Ivermectin as a cure for Covid.

For reasons I will get to, we dont know that yet. We know with certainty, however, that a government that wants to uphold web standards is breaking every standard of good governance to guarantee that a former Daily Mail editor has a loud voice in deciding where the lines are drawn. Downing Street is desperate for Dacre to become the chair of Ofcom, at the moment when it expands its powers. The legislation will turn the broadcast regulator into a gargantuan online moderator. Ofcom staff will have rights of entry and inspection and the ability to impose penalties on online companies of 18m or 10% annual turnover, whichever is greater.

Even his most devoted fans would not say Dacre was famous for his impartiality when it came to the BBC and Channel 4 News. Nor was his Daily Mail the first place youd look for opposition to hate, either online or in print. Meanwhile, as the last of the old hot metal editors, Dacre is likely to know little of modern media technology and to think a network protocol is a Robert Ludlum thriller.

Last year, the governments own appointments advisers concluded Dacres strong opinions on the British media precluded him from becoming Ofcoms chair. Ministers refused to accept the verdict. They are now scouring the country for unscrupulous interviewers, willing to earn favour with the powerful by authorising a Dacre stitch-up.

Although the favouritism appals many, civil servants console themselves that Dacre will be just one man on Ofcoms board and unable to impose his prejudices. Their confidence would be better founded if the legislation did not give Conservative politicians the right to tell everyone at Ofcom what they can and cannot regulate.

British regulators have always remained at arms length from politics. The UK is party to a Council of Europe declaration, which spells out that governments must avoid regulatory authorities that are under the influence of political power. The online safety bill tears that old principle apart.

Todays culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, who, like Dacre, is in place to troll liberals, will not be constrained. The bill gives her the power to set Ofcoms strategic priorities. Ofcom must submit each online code of practice to Whitehall so ministers can ensure it reflects government policy. The Conservatives are not standing at arms length. They want the regulators in a necklock.

William Perrin and Prof Lorna Woods of Carnegie UK helped develop the best ideas behind the bill. They emphasised the need to regulate systems, not content. They wanted to ensure that Facebook and Twitter did not just take profits for managers and shareholders but spent money on complaints systems that were properly resourced and lived by the standards they professed to uphold. In a warning the naive Labour frontbench should read before it carries on giving the government its support, Perrin and Woods described how the government was threatening traditional checks and balances. Attempts to force regulators to follow political instructions were crossing the line in the most egregious manner.

Ministers want to use statutory instruments, which parliament rarely votes down, to direct a supposedly independent regulator. Because we do not know what Dorriess diktats will be, I cannot say whether supporters of Black Lives Matter, LGBT rights or Extinction Rebellion should worry about their online presence. But I can show that online regulation has already been twisted for partisan purposes.

When the government put forward proposals for policing the web in 2019, civil servants showed a proper concern for attacks on democracy. Russian interference in western elections and the rise of dark money and targeted misinformation persuaded Whitehall to talk of the need to protect our democratic values and principles. Social media companies must increase the accessibility of trustworthy and varied news content. Earlier this month, the whistleblower Frances Haugen claimed that Facebook chose to amplify hate and misinformation because civic integrity was bad for business. Social media companies profited from the knowledge that content that is hateful, that is divisive, that is polarising gets the most engagement online. The 2019 proposals were designed to bring them to heel.

All that has gone now. Researchers from the Constitution Unit at UCL compared the first draft with the finished legislation. The emphasis shifted decisively away from acknowledging that online platforms have a responsibility for the impact their technology has on democracy, as the fight against fake news vanished.

The Conservative party is always the richest party. In 2019, it received two-thirds of all political donations over 7,500. It benefited in the general election from the propaganda campaigns of shadowy rightwing organisations, which did not have to declare where their revenue came from. The Conservative party is also the Vote Leave party, which pioneered the use of targeting Facebook ads at swing voters. I always thought a government dominated by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove would never allow an assault on fake news and so it has proved.

I sympathise with those who want to control the online promotion of suicide, anorexia, vaccine denial, murder, rape and every other evil 21st-century technology delivers to our phones. But just because we have new technologies does not mean we can abandon old rules. Before you give the power to censor, make sure you know who you are giving it to and what they intend to do with it.

Nick Cohen is an Observer columnist

See the rest here:
Taming the tech giants is one thing. Giving free rein to censors quite another - The Guardian

Impact of online harms bill includes ‘spectre of censorship,’ library group warns in submission – National Post

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Consultation on the governments proposal wrapped up in September, but the government is refusing to release the 423 submissions it received publicly

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

The Liberal governments proposed online harms legislation willall-but guarantee that the system will leadto the mass removal of content,according to the Canadian Association of Research Libraries.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

And thatwill impact individual freedom of expression rights, increase the spectre of censorship and damagethe historical record, says the association.

The association has joined civil liberties groups and international organizations who are raising the alarm about the billwhich will mandate social media and other platforms monitor online posts and remove illegal content.

The bill would target terrorist content, content that incites violence, hate speech, intimate images shared non-consensually, and child sexual exploitation material. Platforms would have to remove illegal content within 24 hours of it being flagged, and a new regulator called the Digital Safety Commissioner of Canada would be in charge of enforcement.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Experts have warned various aspects of the proposal, including the mandatory monitoring and removal of content, as well as sweeping new powers given to the regulator, would violate Canadians Charter rights.

The Liberals have promised to introduce the online harms legislation within 100 days of Parliaments return on Nov. 22. The Heritage Canada consultation on the governments proposal wrapped up in September, but the government is refusing to release the 423 submissions it received publicly. Some of the documents have been released by the organizations who participated.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

A number of those have taken issue with a proposal to require online platforms to report flagged content to law enforcement. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association wrote that it has significant concerns the proposal would leverage online platforms as agents of law enforcement, creating mandatory reporting and preservation obligations that may expand over time and significantly impact the privacy rights of Canadians. It added that the governments proposal to include CSIS is of particular concern.

Advocacy group OpenMedia warned that the proposal would lead to the automatic reporting of an enormous volume of lawful content directly to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), deputizing online platforms as surveillance agents of the state in a system not seen anywhere else in the democratic world.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The group wrote that if the government goes ahead with the proposal to require platforms to take down content, such a law would lead directly and predictably to an unprecedented increase in the removal of considerable legitimate and lawful forms of speech online. Thats because platforms face heavy legal and financial risk if they dont take down content that could potentially be found illegal, and have no counter-balancing incentive to consider the posters rights.

The government has also heard international perspectives on its plans. The coalition Global Network Initiative said aspects of the proposal appear to be inconsistent with international human rights principles, regulatory best practice, and Canadas leadership on Internet freedom. GNI, whose members include Google, Facebook, Human Rights Watch, the Wikimedia Foundation and various academics, said the proposed approach presents a set of sweeping obligations for (platforms) in Canada that, as framed, could pose significant risks for freedom of expression and privacy.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Ranking Digital Rights, which advocates for freedom of expression and privacy on the internet, said the proposal contradicts international commitments Canada has made, including to the Freedom Online Coalition and the Global Conference for Media Freedom.

While Canadians can take comfort in the strength of their democratic institutions, all countries are but one election away from democratic decline and a slide into authoritarianism, RDR wrote. Our recent experience in the United States has been a sobering one, reinforcing the importance of balanced institutional powers, good governance, and oversight mechanisms.

Digital rights advocacy group Access Now wrote that the 24 hour deadline to remove content is unreasonable and onerous. Strict and short deadlines for content removals cannot be reconciled with international human rights law, it said, noting that the Constitutional Council of France recently said short deadlines for removing online illegal content were unconstitutional, given their impact on freedom of expression. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has also previously warned 24-hour takedowns could lead platforms to delete legitimate expression, Access Now said.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Requiring online platforms to monitor content is a violation of freedom of expression, the group argued, noting the Council of Europe and United Nations have spoken out against such measures.

Even some who are in favour of putting in place a regulatory system to address online harms took issue with the governments approach. The Womens Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) said that it believes in regulating hateful, discriminatory, and harmful content but it cant support the governments proposal as drafted. LEAF said the government is taking the wrong approach in treating five categories of illegal content the same way, and that lumping non-consensual sharing of intimate images in the same legislation as, for example, terrorist content is highly problematic.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

It also criticized the proposal to require mandatory reporting to law enforcement, noting that while it may be appropriate in the case of child exploitation materials, some individuals have concerns about, fear of, or prior negative experiences with, police involvement especially for those who are Black, Indigenous, and racialized. The group added mandatory reporting risks the over-criminalization of individuals and puts innocent people at risk of being reported to the police.

Many of the participants also took the government to task for the consultation itself. They said the consultation shouldnt have been held during the federal election, which made it more difficult to take part. The CCLA pointed out the consultation didnt ask many questions, suggesting that the government has largely already decided what it intends to do.

OpenMedia said the consultation provides absolutely no opportunity to help shape the framework of either the problem at hand, nor any of the proposed solutions.

It argued this is unacceptable policy-making in a democratic society. But it is particularly egregious as the government considers infringing on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and limiting citizens ability to participate in the primary public spaces of our era, online platforms.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

More:
Impact of online harms bill includes 'spectre of censorship,' library group warns in submission - National Post

Trump is fighting Twitter’s censorship with an even more censorious social site of his own – Yahoo News

Donald Trump. Illustrated | Getty Images, iStock

After nearly a year banned from most major social media outlets, former President Donald Trump has created his own platform. Trump announced Wednesday night he is creating "TRUTH Social," projected to launch early next year. (Given his constant lying, the site's name is either trollish or Orwellian.) "We live in a world where the Taliban has a huge presence on Twitter," Trump said in the announcement, "yet your favorite American president has been silenced."

But if Trump used the launch announcement to sneer at Twitter, that doesn't mean he's given up on returning to the platform. The launch of TRUTH a typically all-caps appellation comes while the former president is still pursuing a lawsuit bent on forcing Twitter to let him start blaring missives to the millions of followers he once claimed, before being locked out after the Jan. 6 election.

But surely his involvement in a new social media platform undermines the logic of that lawsuit. Twitter "exercises a degree of power and control over political discourse in this country that is immeasurable, historically unprecedented, and profoundly dangerous to open democratic debate," his lawyers argued in a filing just three weeks ago. The company is "censoring" Trump, the filing said.

But TRUTH seriously, ugh isn't exactly a free speech zone. Axios' Lachlan Markay pointed out Thursday morning that the platform's terms of service bans users from posts that "disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site." If you're looking to criticize Trump, this is not the place to start posting.

More importantly, Trump's lawsuit depends on the idea that Twitter is so omnipotent it has a virtual stranglehold on democratic discourse in this country. The platform is powerful, yes, but the existence of conservative-oriented competitors Parler, Gab, GETTR suggest there are plenty of options for the MAGA crowd to express themselves. Trump's involvement in yet another competitor is a signal the discourse can happen even without Twitter.

Story continues

Then again, Trump may be less concerned about the discourse and more interested in cash: The new company has reportedly generated nearly $300 million in financing. And if Twitter's ban is ever dropped, you can probably expect Trump to run back immediately. It's the digital space where he was most fully himself. If that's the case, we'll probably find out again that Trump has only a casual regard for TRUTH.

NYC to impose vaccine mandate for all city workers, including police

The American 'Great Resignation' by the numbers

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry indicted on charges of lying to federal investigators

View original post here:
Trump is fighting Twitter's censorship with an even more censorious social site of his own - Yahoo News

Vaccination and Censorship: The Truth Will Set Us Free – TideWater Latest News

This article was beforehand revealed February 6, 2021, and has been up to date with new info.

On December 22, 2020, a nonprofit restricted firm primarily based in Great Britain that calls itself the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH)1,2,3 revealed a report titled The Anti-Vaxx Playbook.4

It incorporates false and deceptive details about the Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination, which was sponsored by the 39-year-old U.S. nonprofit instructional charity the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), and held on-line in October 2020. Promotion of the CCDH report resulted within the spreading of pretend information and misinformation by mainline media shops in Great Britain and the U.S.5,6,7,8,9

NVICs pay-for-view digital convention10 was transparently open to the general public and featured displays by 51 audio system from the U.S. and different nations discussing vaccine science, public well being coverage and regulation, knowledgeable consent and civil liberties.

Dedicated to Protecting Health and Autonomy in the 21st Century, the convention was made obtainable on February 2, 2021 at no cost viewing on-line. Go to NVIC.org11 to entry the convention web site and watch all the displays.

Influence Watch, which screens people and teams that affect12 public coverage, describes CCDH as a London-based advocacy group that targets accused hate groups and individuals for de-platforming campaigns to remove them from major social media outlets and has ties to the left-wing British Labour Party and British left-progressivism.13

The anonymously funded CCDH additionally has an workplace in Washington, D.C. and the defamatory publicity marketing campaign created in December 2020 was designed to not solely discredit NVICs four-decade public document of working throughout the U.S. democratic system to safe vaccine security and knowledgeable consent protections in public well being insurance policies and legal guidelines, however to destroy our small charity.

The misinformation marketing campaign was spearheaded by the CEO of CCDH, whos a political operative14 personally affiliated with Great Britains socialist Labour Party.15,16,17

The report deceived readers by describing NVICs 2020 convention as a gathering recently held in private over three days, which implied secrecy,18 despite the fact that the occasion was transparently open to the general public identical to the 4 earlier vaccination conferences NVIC hosted in 1997, 2000, 2002 and 2009.19

One British tabloid learn the report and described NVICs public convention as a private conference call the place secret plans had been plotted to launch the largest ever misinformation campaign about vaccines.20

Last summer time, CCDH revealed their first report alleging that Big Tech corporations working social media platforms make large income by permitting people and organizations criticizing vaccine science, coverage and regulation to message on their platforms,21 and will take stronger motion to censor on-line public conversations about vaccination that dont conform with the scientific consensus that vaccines are safe.22,23

That July 2020 report was promoted by mainline media shops in Britain24,25,26,27 and the U.S.28 However, CCDHs report revealed 5 months later in December 2020, which created faux information and misinformation about NVICs convention, contained much more inflammatory rhetoric.

It demonized these who criticize vaccine security as malignant actors,29 and CCDH demanded that corporations and governments nearly eradicate people or teams publishing info on-line that fails to align with authorities and trade narratives about vaccination and public well being coverage.

In that report, CCDH ordered Big Tech corporations and governments to censor and punish dissenters, charging that anything less than the dismantling of these individuals profiles, pages and groups and permanent denial of service, now they know what is happening, is willing acquiescence.30

On January 18, 2021, the anonymously funded CCDH as soon as once more publicly attacked the National Vaccine Information Center, this time for making use of for a U.S. Paycheck Protection Program mortgage to safe the continued employment of NVICs 21 employees throughout large nationwide unemployment brought on by lockdowns.

The British nonprofit firm appeared to counsel that the U.S. authorities mustnt have been viewpoint-neutral in granting reduction loans, however ought to have utilized an ideological litmus take a look at to NVICs mortgage request that was made to retain workers throughout catastrophic financial hardship brought on by lockdowns which have affected donations to charities.31

CCDH CEO Imran Ahmed stated, Lending money to these organizations so they can prosper is a sickening use of taxpayer money.32 Once once more, mainline media shops in Britain and the U.S. extensively promoted CCDHs allegations.33,34,35,36,37

Six months of orchestrated public assaults on NVIC by CCDH have generated hate mail to our small charity, which was based and has been led by dad and mom of vaccine-injured youngsters for 4 a long time.38

I used to be born into a post-World War II technology within the U.S., a technology identified for difficult the established order and exercising the suitable to dissent, which is protected underneath the U.S. Constitution.39

Whether it was advocating for the suitable to take heed to rock n roll and becoming a member of antinuclear protests in the Fifties,40,41 or marching in help of civil rights and opposing an undeclared warfare in Asia within the Sixties,42,43 or ladies combating for equal alternative and pay and shopper activists working for environmental safety and automobile security legal guidelines within the Seventies,44,45,46,47 or moms protesting towards drunk drivers48 and selecting a drug-free beginning and breastfeeding for his or her infants within the Nineteen Eighties,49,50 the child boomer technology has been identified for exercising freedom of thought and speech.

Contentious social, political and well being problems with the Twentieth century sparked heated debates on faculty campuses,51 the place college students might nonetheless discover, critique and brazenly seek for fact, and in mainline newspapers, magazines and radio and tv stations, the place level/counterpoint examination of controversial subjects was the hallmark of fine journalism as a result of public debate is the hallmark of free speech.

The America the place I grew up within the mid-Twentieth century was a beacon of hope for folks residing behind the Iron Curtain52 and in different totalitarian or authoritarian societies,53 the place train of freedom of thought, speech and conscience and the suitable to dissent and peacefully assemble and petition the federal government for redress of grievances had been eradicated, the place folks had been became silent indentured servants working to serve a small ruling class answerable for the state.54

Statists, who consider that financial management and planning should be within the arms of a extremely centralized authorities,55 are at all times afraid of the reality, afraid that folks armed with information will act collectively to problem management of the state by a strong and privileged few.

I was in junior highschool when President John F. Kennedy addressed the American Newspaper Publishers Association in 1961. He stated:56

Without debate, with out criticism no administration and no nation can succeed and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a criminal offense for any citizen to shrink from controversy.

And thats the reason our press was protected by the First Amendment the one enterprise in America particularly protected by the Constitution not primarily to amuse and entertain, to not emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, to not merely give the general public what it needs however to tell, to arouse, to replicate, to state our risks and our alternatives, to point our crises and our selections, to guide, mould, educate and generally even anger public opinion.

He closed with these phrases:

So it is to the printing press to the recorder of mans deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help, man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

That speech given 60 years in the past was a ringing endorsement for freedom of the press. Yet, within the twenty first century, its changing into clear that there are political operatives and firms in search of to censor freedom of thought and speech by citizen journalists publishing evaluation and perspective on the worldwide net, an digital communications community that has been the worlds greatest discussion board at no cost speech over the previous quarter century.57,58

The proper to dissent59 and train freedom of thought, speech and conscience60 is underneath assault in America,61 despite the fact that these cherished civil liberties are codified into the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. And civil liberties are underneath assault internationally in different nations with consultant democracies, as effectively.62

Today, political operatives are pressuring authorities, media firms and different establishments to eradicate freedom of speech, particularly public conversations about vaccine science, coverage and regulation.63,64,65

Spirited public debate about vaccine security and obligatory vaccination legal guidelines has been occurring for greater than two centuries.66,67 What is the justification for censoring that public dialog now and punishing those that interact in it with financial and social sanctions?68,69

And if the public dialog about vaccination and well being could be censored, what subject would be the subsequent one placed on the no fly listing?70,71

Im a co-founder and president of the extremely rated nonprofit instructional charity established in 1982 and identified at this time because the National Vaccine Information Center.72,73 Our mission is to stop vaccine accidents and deaths by public schooling. NVIC doesnt make vaccine use suggestions. We advocate for the human and authorized proper to make knowledgeable and voluntary choices about vaccination with out being coerced or punished for the choice made.74

Our not-for-profit charitable group was established for one motive: We had been moms and fathers of youngsters mind injured by the extremely reactive pertussis vaccine in the DPT shot and we needed a safer pertussis vaccine to interchange the one which had damage our youngsters. That objective was completed after 14 years of shopper advocacy when a much less reactive acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine was licensed for infants within the U.S. in 1996.75

We additionally needed dad and mom to have entry to correct and full details about the dangers and issues of each illnesses and vaccines earlier than youngsters are vaccinated, so dad and mom and pediatricians might work collectively to establish these youngsters whore extra inclined to vaccine reactions and shield their well being.

That is why we labored with Congress to safe vaccine security informing, recording, reporting and analysis provisions within the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, a regulation by which the U.S. authorities formally acknowledged for the primary time that vaccine security needs to be made a nationwide precedence as a result of federally licensed and really helpful and state mandated childhood vaccines can and do trigger everlasting accidents and even dying for some youngsters.76,77,78

We arent all the identical. We dont all react the identical option to pharmaceutical merchandise,79,80,81 which is why our group has strongly supported analysis into genetic, epigenetic, environmental and different danger components that make some people extra inclined to adversarial responses to vaccination.82,83

We consider each life is essential, and that the lives of these harmed by vaccines and infectious illnesses needs to be equally valued and guarded.

We consider that shopper advocacy has and will proceed to play an lively position in holding pharmaceutical corporations and authorities businesses accountable for vaccine product security, and were devoted to working responsibly throughout the democratic system of this Constitutional Republic to make well being coverage and regulation safer and simpler for everybody.84,85,86

Since 1988, I and different NVIC representatives have served as shopper members of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee, FDA Vaccines & Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines, Vaccine Policy Analysis Collaborative and different federal and state public engagement initiatives discussing vaccine science, coverage and regulation points with vaccine builders, federal and state well being officers, medical commerce and pharmaceutical trade representatives, and members of different nonprofit organizations.87,88,89

My 22 years of service as a shopper member on federal advisory committees and public engagement initiatives contains 4 years as a member of the Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Forum on the National Academy of Science, the place I helped to coordinate public workshops on vaccine science, coverage and regulation points90 and was an editor for the report on Risk Communication and Vaccination revealed by the National Academy Press. That report importantly said:91

The objective that each one events share concerning vaccine danger communication needs to be knowledgeable determination making. Consent for vaccination is really knowledgeable when the members of the general public know the dangers and advantages and make voluntary choices.

The dialogue of obligatory vaccination on the workshop advised that it could intervene with knowledgeable consent and will injury belief and deter efficient communication, and thus must be rigorously weighed towards its advantages.

We consider the human proper to freedom of thought, speech and conscience needs to be revered, not devalued. As public well being rules and legal guidelines are being created through the coronavirus pandemic to limit or eradicate civil liberties,92 we needs to be encouraging folks to have civil conversations about vaccination, well being and autonomy. Americans needs to be welcomed by legislators to take part in not be shut out of the democratic regulation making course of.93

When folks really feel disenfranchised and consider that these in energy dont care about their lives or the lives of their youngsters, thats when belief in authorities is misplaced and other people let worry, anger and despair management their actions. Empowering folks with information and the hope they may help impact significant change in the event that they do it in a rational and constructive method has at all times been certainly one of NVICs guiding rules.94

I need to thank the beneficiant sponsors and attendees of the Fifth International Public Conference on Vaccination: Protecting Health and Autonomy within the twenty first Century, who helped to make it financially potential for NVIC to host a digital convention final fall.95

The convention had been scheduled for 2 years to be held in October 2020 in a lodge within the Washington, D.C. space. When journey and social distancing restrictions had been enacted within the spring of 2020, we had to choose between canceling the convention or pivoting to a pay-for-view on-line public convention.

We selected to carry the convention on-line as a result of we knew that the controversial points being debated within the public sq. this yr wanted a public discussion board the place well-anchored info and perspective may very well be introduced.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the greater than two dozen principled and brave scientists, physicians, holistic well being professionals, authors, attorneys, religion leaders, dad and mom of vaccine injured youngsters and civil and human rights activists, who signify various areas of experience and took part in our convention.96

No matter what number of political operatives, firms and establishments threaten and attempt to discredit NVIC and our work as a way to silence us, we is not going to abandon our 40-year mission devoted to stopping vaccine accidents and deaths by public schooling and defending the moral precept of knowledgeable consent. We are shifting ahead with religion and resolve that we will safe a future for America that protects well being and autonomy within the twenty first century.

Because we all know that if the state can tag, monitor down and pressure people towards their will to be injected with biologicals of identified and unknown toxicity at this time, then therell be no restrict on which people freedoms the state can take away within the identify of the higher good tomorrow.

Be the one who by no means has to say you didnt do at this time what you may have executed to alter tomorrow. Its your well being. Your household. Your alternative. And our mission continues. No compelled vaccination. Not in America.

Source link

Link:
Vaccination and Censorship: The Truth Will Set Us Free - TideWater Latest News

Letter to the Editor: Censorship in reporting on RSU 9 board Meetings Daily Bulldog – Daily Bulldog

It seems we the public are only told of what certain people want printed. For example, it was never reported that the board voted unanimously to move the central office out of the high school to an undesignated location for thirty-two to thirty-four months and up to thirty-eight hundred dollars per month rent. This was to be paid by ESSR Funds, free covid money, so you know what happens next. There have been no estimates of cost of renovation to the high school, so what will this ultimately cost us. They also voted unanimously to have the superintendent enter into a contract with Ms. McCalmon to facilitate strategic planning, again with no mention of how much money would be involved. It was also stated by the board chair at the last meeting there is no state law on public comment at a board meeting. Obviously the havent read Title twenty A subsection 1001, 20, in duties of a schoolboard. They talk about transparency. Hard to be transparent when all the windows are painted black. No light in, you cant see out. I believe we will be hit with the construction of a new building in the near future. What do you think that will cost to build and maintain? I have said before you need to pay attention or the costs in this district will soar, especially when all the positions and other items paid with free money runs out.

Craig StickneyChesterville

View original post here:
Letter to the Editor: Censorship in reporting on RSU 9 board Meetings Daily Bulldog - Daily Bulldog