Mediaboss Marketing

Russias invasion of Ukraine has resulted in even stricter censorship and control of Russian religious communities, other public organizations, media outlets, and individuals whether by means of prosecution for the newly created offenses of discrediting the Armed Forces or disseminating false information about them, or pressure from state authorities and religious hierarchies not to condemn or discuss the war.

Lutheran Archbishop Dietrich Brauer, who has left Russia for Germany, said that, at the start of the war, President Vladimir Putins administration made a clear demand of religious leaders to speak out in favor of the invasion.

A pastor in a different Protestant church described to Forum 18 how FSB security service officers visited clergy to warn them not to say anything critical in sermons or on social media.

Several religious organizations have apparently voluntarily endorsed the invasion, particularly the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). Its leader Patriarch Kirill has long advocated the concept of Russky Mir (the Russian World), which holds that Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus all constitute a single spiritual and cultural space in opposition to the liberal and secular West.

In his Sunday sermon on March 6, Patriarch Kirill claimed that Russia was protecting the Donbas from outside pressure to abide by liberal values, especially as expressed in gay pride parades, arguing that this indicates that we have entered into a struggle that has not a physical, but a metaphysical significance. Pope Francis stated on May 3 that the Patriarch had spent much of a video call on March 16 reading out all the reasons that justify the Russian invasion.

Despite this official support for the war, several Moscow Patriarchate priests have resigned from their jobs and in some cases, left the country after their opposition to the war brought them into conflict with their dioceses.

Father Nikolay Platonov, for example, posted a YouTube video criticizing Patriarch Kirill for having justified in fact, blessed military action in Ukraine, and dismissing the Patriarchs argument about gay parades in the Donbas as ridiculous. He also notes the pressure his diocese has put on parishes to collect donations for the Russian army in Ukraine: No one asked the priests opinion. All those who disagree are being identified they will smear everyone. Nobody will be left out. Referring to President Putin, Father Nikolay concludes: I say this to those who can still see and hear, who still have a conscience. Run, run. A crazy subhuman is in power, who will retain power at any cost. On the altar of his vanity, he will lay thousands and hundreds of thousands of people your children, the children of a neighboring state.

People protesting against the war on the basis of their faith continue to be detained and prosecuted. On May 8, police in St. Petersburg detained Nikita Rezyukov outside Kazan Cathedral and charged him under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3, Part 1 (Public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation) for a placard with a quote from the Psalms: Turn from evil and do good. Seek peace and pursue it. Police did not respond to Forum 18s questions as to why they detained him for holding a placard with a Biblical quotation.

Russias media watchdog, Roskomnadzor, also regularly blocks websites with information about the war. Blocked material includes a Belarusian news report on the destruction of Ukrainian religious buildings, and a Ukrainian Protestant pastors appeal to fellow clergy in Russia speak out against the invasion. Roskomnadzor did not respond to Forum 18s inquiry as to why it blocks such material.

Small numbers of clergy and laypeople continue to protest against the war in Ukraine from an explicitly religious standpoint. Those who protest against the war are often punished under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3 (Public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation).

Courts have fined two Russian Orthodox priests and a Baptist preacher for discrediting the armed forces online or in sermons or conversations. Several people have been detained and some charged for using Biblical quotations or religious imagery in individual public protests.

Such public protests continued over the Victory Day May holiday weekend:

May 7, Khabarovsk: police detained local activist Nikolay Zodchy and charged him under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3, Part 1 for a placard reading Russian! Conquer the vatnik in yourself! (Vatnik is slang for an unquestioning, jingoistic nationalist; Zodchys placard used a Latin letter V in reference to the pro-war V and Z symbols which have become popular signs of support for Russias war in Ukraine.)

Zodchy also gave a speech to onlookers, footage of which was posted on the Sotavision YouTube channel:

Those who ask, where have you been for the last eight years, I want to ask, where are you now? Why are you crying for the children of the Donbas and not for the children of Ukraine? .. [To] many of you who are Orthodox and observe Christian holidays, why do you put above all else the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, although Jesus Christ taught that it is necessary to love your neighbor and love your enemy? After all, Ukrainians are not our enemies. This enmity exists only in the heads of Russians it was sown there by Putin. Ukrainians are our brothers in both the ethnic and the Christian sense therefore, to those who write that I should go to the Donbas, you should go to Mariupol, Kharkiv, Bucha, and other towns and see for yourself what the so-called Russian World has done there.

May 8, St Petersburg: police detained Nikita Rezyukov outside Kazan Cathedral and charged him under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3, Part 1 for a placard reading Turn from evil and do good. Seek peace and pursue it, The Bible, Psalm 33:15 [as numbered in the Russian Synodal Translation] #NoToWar.

Forum 18 wrote to the St. Petersburg and Leningrad Region Interior Ministry and the St Petersburg City Prosecutors Office on May 12, asking why Rezyukov had been detained for quoting the Bible and why this was considered grounds for prosecution under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3. Forum 18 received no reply by the middle of the working day of May 13.

According to human rights news agency OVD-Info, as of May 13 more than 15,000 people have been detained (usually for a few hours or overnight) for participating in anti-war protests. These have included both large-scale demonstrations and individual actions such as wearing Ukrainian colors or displaying anti-war posters and placards (including those which have directly quoted from the Russian constitution or even President Putins own speeches).

As of May 5, also according to OVD-Info, from Feb. 24 police had initiated at least 1,731 cases across Russia and in illegally Russian-occupied Crimea under Administrative Code Article 20.3.3 (Public actions aimed at discrediting the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation) for making anti-war statements either in public spaces or online.

By April 28, 39 people had been charged or placed under investigation under various parts of Criminal Code Article 207.3 (Public dissemination of knowingly false information about the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation), according to OVD-Info.

So far, Criminal Code Article 207.3 is known to have been used against only one person for explicitly religious opposition to the war Nina Belyayeva, a Protestant and Communist municipal deputy in Voronezh Region. During a meeting of Semiluk District Council, she called Russias invasion a war crime. She later wrote: I realized that if I kept silent, I would not be able to respect myself. I wouldnt be a true Christian and human being. She fled Russia in early April.

Father Nikolay Platonov, a parish priest from Chelyabinsk Metropolitanate (Moscow Patriarchate), requested in early April to be made supernumerary (pochislit za shtat, meaning that he remains a priest but is not formally employed in a parish, cathedral, or other institution) because, as he said in a video explaining his decision, I cant be silent any longer, and because After [this video], our church hierarchy will inevitably want to get rid of me with some shameful [legal] article. When a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church starts to speak the truth, he immediately automatically becomes a pedophile, or a thief, or a drug addict.

Metropolitan Aleksey of Chelyabinsk and Miass granted his request on April 8, according to a letter Father Nikolay holds up to the camera.

In the video, posted on his YouTube channel on April 16, he criticizes Patriarch Kirill for having justified in fact, blessed military action in Ukraine, and dismisses the Patriarchs argument about gay parades in the Donbas as ridiculous. He also notes the pressure his diocese has put on parishes to collect donations for the Russian army in Ukraine: No one asked the priests opinion. All those who disagree are being identified they will smear everyone. Nobody will be left out.

Referring to President Putin, Father Nikolay concludes: I say this to those who can still see and hear, who still have a conscience. Run, run. A crazy subhuman is in power, who will retain power at any cost. On the altar of his vanity, he will lay thousands and hundreds of thousands of people your children, the children of a neighboring state.

Father Nikolay was among nearly 300 Russian Orthodox priests to sign an open letter calling for reconciliation and an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine. The letter criticized the suppression of protests against the war, and stated that we believe that the people of Ukraine should make their choice on their own, not at gunpoint, without pressure from West or East.

Another priest who signed the open letter, Father Sergey Titkov, also requested to be made supernumerary (pochislit za shtat) on March 30 for health reasons, according to his letter to Ryazan Diocese, which he posted on his Facebook and VKontakte pages.

A letter from Metropolitan Mark of Ryazan and Mikhailov, dated March 29 and also posted on Father Sergeys social media, stated that people who had attended the Church of the Intercession in the village of Turlatovo had informed diocesan authorities that Father Sergey was not reading the Prayer for the Restoration of Peace during services, a fact confirmed by the priest himself at a meeting with the diocesan secretary. The Metropolitan demanded that Father Sergey provide a written explanation by April 4 of his non-fulfilment of the blessing of the Holy Patriarch, who calls on faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church to offer this prayer at every service.

(Patriarch Kirill issued the Prayer for the Restoration of Peace on March 3 to be read in all churches during the Divine Liturgy, including in Moscow Patriarchate churches in Ukraine. The prayer in Church Slavonic refers to the peoples of Holy Russia, who come from a single font of baptism under Holy Prince Vladimir [of Kyiv, who brought Christianity to Rus] and asks that God establish in their hearts the spirit of brotherly love and peace and thwart the intentions of foreigners who want to take up arms against Holy Russia.)

In another letter of March 30, Metropolitan Mark also demands a written explanation within ten days of Father Sergeys posts on his VKontakte page. Such posts included reposts of articles condemning the war in Ukraine from ahilla.ru a website critical of the Moscow Patriarchate and reposts of a political character (particularly one allegedly comparing President Putin to Hitler and another containing swear words).

At present, the Metropolitan remarked, it seems appropriate not to confuse the minds of people who are already in a state of depression, strong feelings, [and] mental pain, but on the contrary, as far as possible, share with them spiritual warmth, [and] console and support [them]. It is impossible now to make assessments of what is happening, because they will not be correct.

Whether there was pressure on the bishop from the authorities, I dont know, Father Sergey told Forum 18 on May 7. Had he not stepped down as he did, he believes the diocese would have transferred him to another church where the senior priest would report to the bishop on his conduct, that I didnt read the new Prayer for Peace, and so on, or to live in some monastery as a reader, which I would have refused. That is, they would have rattled my nerves, and other peoples, and it would all have ended the same way. I wanted it over as soon as possible, and not to have it turn into a circus.

In 2019, Father Sergey was also among Russian Orthodox (Moscow Patriarchate) priests who signed an open letter in defence of people arrested during protests in Moscow against the authorities refusal to register opposition candidates for local elections.

Deacon Dmitry Bayev wrote to the Vyatka Diocese on Feb. 25, asking to be made supernumerary (pochislit za shtat) until the situation is settled, since as a Christian holding the rank of deacon, he could not participate in services at which prayers were offered for the government and armed forces. He posted the letter to social media on the same day.

On March 11, the Diocese banned him from serving on the grounds of three Apostolic Canons, including Canon No. 25, which refers to being found guilty of fornication, perjury, or theft despite the fact that Bayev had not yet been charged with any offence under secular law. The Diocese announced an ecclesiastical tribunal.

Forum 18 wrote to the Vyatka Diocese press office on May `1, asking what the outcome of the church tribunal was, and why diocesan authorities had banned Bayev from serving in church under Apostolic Canon No. 25 when he had not committed any of the named offences and before any criminal case had been opened. Forum 18 received no reply by the middle of the working day of May 13.

The Investigative Committee opened a case against Bayev on March 23 under Criminal Code Article 207. 3, Part 2, Paragraph d (Public dissemination of knowingly false information about the use of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation based on political, ideological, racial, national or religious hatred or enmity, or based on hatred or enmity against any social group).

It does not appear that this was because of any protests made on religious grounds, but as Current Time noted on April 1, because of his vociferous general condemnation of Russias actions in Ukraine, including comments that Ukrainian troops had sent 17,500 orcs [a derogatory word for Russian soldiers] to the next world and that Russian troops were occupiers.

Bayev has also posted about the Genocide of the population of Ukraine by Russian orcs (with a series of pictures of destruction in the Ukrainian city of Mariupol), has called the FSB security service a terrorist grouping, and is highly condemnatory of the Russian government and army and the Russian Orthodox Church.

Bayev is now outside Russia, he told Idel Realii on April 12, and does not intend to return, because I was given to understand that as soon as I cross the border in the opposite direction, they will immediately take me in.

The degree to which state authorities are putting pressure on religious leaders and organizations at different levels is unclear. Asked whether Russian Orthodox diocesan authorities were acting autonomously in disciplining clergy over their views on the war, a priest told Forum 18 that Russia has not been just taken over by enemies or extraterrestrials. Becoming a bishop can only be done by being willing to play by certain rules.. No special pressure [from the authorities] is needed here.

According to Archbishop Dietrich Brauer, head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Russia, the Presidential Administration issued a clear demand to all religious leaders to speak out in support of Russias invasion of Ukraine. Brauer gave a sermon in Moscows Cathedral of St Peter and St Paul on Feb. 27, which consisted of thinly veiled criticism of the war. He left Russia for Germany shortly afterwards and sees no possibility of return in the near future.

I believe that under no circumstances is it appropriate to put pressure on religious leaders, Archbishop Brauer commented to independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta on March 22. On the contrary, it is they who can become intermediaries in achieving sustainable peace.

In an interview with Die Kirche (a weekly church newspaper in Berlin and Brandenburg) on April 14, Brauer said: We are witnessing the blackmail of religion. But we shouldnt abandon the truth of the gospel, because then we have no future. He also noted that prayers in Russian churches cannot specify that we have in mind the people in Ukraine, the images and horrors of the war.

Brauer described the invasion as unimaginable in an interview on March 17 with Magdalena Smetana, press officer of Wrttemberg Diocese. We were not allowed to talk about the war, pray for peace, or contact our Ukrainian brothers and sisters, he said.

The Presidential Administration made a clear demand of all religious leaders to speak out and support the war. Most did. [My] Catholic colleague refers to the Vatican and is silent, the Jewish chief rabbi, who also has American citizenship, found clever words. He called on everyone to work for peace. We could have joined that. I wanted to write a joint statement with all religious communities, but the others didnt agree. Together we could have made a difference.

I clearly and publicly distance myself from this war, which is not just a war against Ukraine, but a war against humanity. It is not carried out in our name.

The website of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Russia still lists Brauer as Archbishop, but notes that due to his absence, his duties are being carried out by Deputy Archbishop, Provost Vladimir Provorov.

An official statement issued by the Church in March (signed by Provorov) noted that we feel united with our country and we pray for our people, for the well-being, freedom, wisdom and strength of our state. It goes on to acknowledge that parishioners may have different beliefs and views. The doors of our churches remain open to all. We regard all believers as brothers and sisters. At the same time, we avoid political discussions and splits in the communities.

We deeply regret that people are now suffering and dying in Ukraine, the Lutheran statement continued, and we call on politicians to reach a peaceful resolution to the conflict as soon as possible.. Despite all the political divisions in our societies, we feel our spiritual connection with our Ukrainian co-religionists and pray for the speedy onset of peace and that there will be no hatred, bitterness and confrontation between our peoples.

A Protestant pastor from a non-Lutheran denomination, who asked not to be identified, told Forum 18 that the security services are exerting pressure on religious communities at a local level. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, FSB officers in one city have visited at least two Protestant pastors for prophylactic conversations, warning them not to post material criticizing the war on social media, or to speak out against it in church. The officers warned them that they could face prosecution if they did so and it would be better not to write or say anything about the war.

According to the pastor who spoke to Forum 18, the FSB security service has long shown interest in any Ukrainian connections churches may have, such as when the church received visitors from there.

After undercover officers went to one Protestant church in the Mari-El Republic in 2019, prosecutors charged both the church and a visiting Ukrainian musician with unlawful missionary activity under Administrative Code Article 5.26, Parts 4 and 5.

Since the Russian invasion, the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) has blocked dozens of webpages, both Russian and foreign, which describe events in Ukraine as a war, discuss Russian losses or alleged atrocities, or criticize the Russian government.

On April 20, at the request of Russias General Prosecutors Office, Roskomnadzor blocked access to an article entitled Russian troops purposefully destroy churches and places of worship in Ukraine, published by Belarusian news outlet Brestskaya Gazeta on April 11. The article outlined the destruction of at least 59 places of worship as of March 25, Christian (including those of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate), Jewish, and Muslim. It also noted the deaths of priests in Russian bombardments of Ukrainian towns and villages.

(As of May 8, 116 places of worship and other religious buildings had been destroyed or damaged in Russian attacks, according to the Ukrainian Ministry of Culture and Information Policy.)

A few days later, the article disappeared entirely from the Brestskaya Gazeta website. Roskomnadzor demanded [that we] delete this article, staff at the newspaper told Forum 18 on April 26. Since the site is hosted in Belarus, we had to delete it. They did not explain why they had to abide by Roskomnadzors demand, as the newspaper is registered and its website hosted outside Russia.

Roskomnadzor blocked another Brestskaya Gazeta article (about how to talk to relatives who do not believe in Russian atrocities in Ukraine) on April 13, which has also been removed. According to GlobalCheck, which monitors internet censorship in Russia, Brestkaya Gazetas entire site is inaccessible in Russia, despite not appearing to be blocked as a whole by Roskomnadzor.

On April 1, also at the request of Russias General Prosecutors Office, Roskomnadzor blocked a Russian-language appeal on the foreign Protestant website invictory.org by Valery Antonyuk, head of the All-Ukrainian Union of Churches of Evangelical Christian Baptists, to Protestant pastors in Russia, Belarus, and elsewhere.

Antonyuk talks about how Russian soldiers destroy cities, wipe out villages, rob and rape in Ukraine, condemns the silence of Evangelical leaders, and calls on them to speak out against the war: Where are todays Niemllers and Bonhoeffers in your churches? he asks, in a reference to German pastors who opposed the Nazis. Where are Gods pastors who clearly call aggression aggression, annexation theft, and presidents who unleash bloody wars criminals? Many Christians and their pastors, unfortunately, today believe more in the new bible, Russian TV, than in the testimonies of brothers and sisters in faith.

Roskomnadzors demand to invictory.org dated March 26 and seen by Forum 18 describes Antonyuks appeal as containing untrustworthy information which may contribute to the destabilization of the situation, as well as the creation of conditions for mass violations of public order and public security on the territory of the Russian Federation. Roskomnadzor demanded that the website take down the page within 24 hours and inform it when it had done so. Roskomnadzor warned that if the website failed to take down the material, it would be entirely blocked in Russia.

According to GlobalCheck, invictory.org is inaccessible in Russia, despite not appearing to be blocked as a whole by Roskomnadzor.

Forum 18 wrote to Roskomnadzor in the afternoon of the working day of May 10, asking why it had blocked these webpages and on what grounds it could demand the removal of material from a site hosted abroad. Forum 18 received no reply by the middle of the working day of May 13.

This story is republished from Forum 18.

See the article here:
Russian Religious Communities Opposed to Ukraine War Face Pressure And Censorship - Religion Unplugged

How people feel about Big Tech has changed since last year.

A new study from the Pew Research Center found that fewer people in the US want more regulations for Big Tech companies. This decline, which spans across the political spectrum, showed that 44 percent of Americans are in favor of more government regulation compared to 56 percent of those surveyed last year.

That doesnt necessarily mean theyre all in favor of less regulation; for example, 32 percent of liberal Democrats surveyed say that the current amount of regulation is just right compared to the 23 percent who thought so in 2021. However, 27 percent of moderate or liberal Republicans do support less regulation, up from 13 percent, and 36 percent of conservative Republicans do, too, up from 11 percent. Only 35 percent of those conservative Republicans surveyed desire more regulation now, a drop from the 59 percent recorded in 2021.

In 2018, following Facebooks Cambridge Analytica scandal that found that the company harvested data from at least 50 million users without their permission, many people called for more regulations from the US government, and Congress went on to question Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other tech leaders. Globally, this sparked a backlash against Big Tech companies and lots of ideas about how to regulate them. The EU in particular has been pushing hard with a huge new antitrust law called the Digital Markets Act, though its implementation has been postponed until next year. Its also enforcing older laws like the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, to hold tech companies more accountable for their business practices.

The Pew study also addresses one possible reason why Americans might be softening on additional regulation: the popular idea that social networks are censoring speech. Now, 77 percent of Americans surveyed say that its likely that social media platforms intentionally censor opposing political viewpoints, up from 73 percent in 2020, and 44 percent say these platforms favor liberal views over conservative ones, according to the survey.

Twitter, Facebook, and others have been criticized by users for censorship, but prospective new Twitter owner Elon Musk has declared he would take a more relaxed approach to how Twitter handles its content moderation. As Verge contributing editor Casey Newton points out in his latest Platformer newsletter, Musk might want to look at these companies transparency reports; he explains that many of these removals referenced in complaints about censorship are rooted in mistakes and that social networks remove others because its good for business. Over and over again, social products find that their usage shrinks when even a small percentage of the material they host includes spam, nudity, gore, or people harassing each other, Newton writes.

Understanding that can help people have better conversations surrounding online content.

See original here:
Fewer Americans think Big Tech should have more regulations - The Verge

In the wake of the death of the Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh and the images of Israeli police officers beating pallbearers at her funeral, the discussion over the past week has focused primarily on the question of the damage to Israels international reputation and not the fear that a life was taken due to an error the responsibility for which has not yet been determined, whether that of an Israel Defense Forces soldier or a Palestinian gunman. The violence of the police officers during the funeral procession also drew little attention from most Israelis and Israeli media outlets. To many people, appearances are everything.

Against the backdrop of this public atmosphere, it is easy to understand how it is that the IDF Military Censor which operates by dint of emergency regulations that have been in effect since the country's establishment, in the name of national security got up on its hind legs in order to prevent a different publication with the potential to affect Israels image: the purpose for which, according to defense sources, then-Mossad chief Yossi Cohen traveled to the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2019 (see story, page 1).

Cohen visited Congo three times during that year with the Israeli billionaire businessman Dan Gertler, without coordinating with the authorities and while concealing his identity. During at least two of these trips he met with Congos former president, Joseph Kabila, a matter that aroused the suspicion of President Felix Tshisekedi. Cohens relationship with Kabila and his uncoordinated visits triggered apprehension in people close to Tshisekedi, and in a rare move he expelled the Mossad director from the country at the end of the third visit. Cohens odd conduct, which led to his expulsion and the exposure of his activity in Congo, is the part of the story that was not censored.

The purpose of these visits is in itself a Pandoras box, but the censor is not permitting publication of those details. It appears that Cohens mission in Congo had only a tangential connection to Israels national security, and his employment of the Mossad in dealing with it raises difficult questions regarding the judgment of Cohen and of the state.

It can be said with a great degree of certainty that the Military Censor is preventing publication for considerations having to do with the image of the state that do not necessarily have direct bearing on its security. Although publication of the details of the affair has the potential to generate an international storm, it is difficult to imagine that their disclosure could do concrete damage to national security.

Just as the Military Censor does not have a mandate to prevent publication of the images from Abu Aklehs funeral even though they are harmful to Israels image it is similarly exceeding its mandate when it prevents publication of Cohens reasons for traveling to Congo. The censor must immediately lift the blackout on details of the affair. A state whose military censor operates out of considerations of the optics does not deserve to be called a democracy.

The above article is Haaretz's lead editorial, as published in the Hebrew and English newspapers in Israel.

Read the rest here:
Who is the Israeli army censor protecting? - Haaretz

My first personal recollection of feeling censored was when a valued but left-leaning client corrected me in mid sentence. I had used the word Democrat instead of Democratic. After a few of these encounters I noticed myself, slowly falling in line, guarding my speech, in an attempt not to offend in my work place.

Fast forwarding a few years, Ive watched the divide between the news organizations grow. The information they choose to present reveals their bias as they echo the same talking points in unison. No matter if their information is true or not, they forge on, never apologizing for misinformation or actual lies.

The 2016 and 2020 presidential elections confirmed the great political divide between Americans. It was during these years more informed and engaged citizens started self censoring. Too many people associated with only those they agreed with politically. Partisans watched the news outlets that bolstered their political agenda and were content repeating talking points without sufficient research to substantiate their accuracy.

Today we have media outlets and big tech telling us what we can say and what we can see. The fact checkers successfully covered up the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 Presidential election. It is now being exposed by the New York Times as truth. Why now? Probably because it no longer stands in the way of their agenda or more likely, incriminating evidence is about to be revealed. The fact checkers have proven themselves to be partisan hacks.

Now lets explore the high gas prices with these facts in mind. When President Trump left office we were energy independent. President Biden on his first day in office shut down the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. He also stopped the extraction of oil on federal lands. Did that cause the price of gas to go up? Yes, it did. Biden was sending a message to the fossil fuel industry that he was starting the great shut down of Americas most valuable asset, fossil fuel. Does Ukraines war have a part in high gas prices? Yes, but prices were already heading upward before the war.

Since the invasion of Ukraine, Biden has imposed sanctions on Russian petroleum. Who will this impact more, the Russians or the US? I dont know. What I do know is I support exploration and development of all energy sources. Biden should abandon his quest to cripple the fossil fuel industry and get on the Drill Baby Drill bandwagon, ASAP.

Biden is begging Venezuela, Mexico and the Saudis to ramp up their drilling and send the US more oil. Begging other countries to potentially pollute their own environment so the US can claim the moral high ground of environmental purity, screams of hypocrisy.The green economy Biden envisions is being hoisted on the American people at a time when the technology is not sufficient to meet the demand. This is a suicidal act that will destroy our economy and crush the middle class in our country.

For years I have heard the drum beat of Russia, Russia, Russia. The media and the government have told us about all the misinformation Russia is spreading. My thoughts on this issue lead me to more questions than answers. Could Russia be feeding Europe and the US misinformation about climate change to curtail our production of fossil fuels? Could Russia be funding non-profits to produce bogus climate models to sway the public with fear? Is Putin using Europes dependency on Russian petroleum as leverage in his war in Ukraine? So many questions and so few answers.

In my childhood I remember how terrible I thought it was that Russia censored their newspapers. Back then it seemed unimaginable censorship would ever be used in the United States.

We are living in a time when Americans are accused daily, by fact checkers aka censors, of spreading misinformation. Whether its Hunter Bidens laptop, COVID, spying on a sitting president, etc., we are censored. When scoffed at stories are eventually proven to be factual, the media or the government never acknowledges it with an apology and seldom a correction. They just move on, not caring if you notice.

Though some of us do not recognize our own country these days, we are not living in a foreign land, we are simply living in foreign times. I conclude with a quote attributed to the 6th century Greek storyteller Aesop, United we stand, divided we fall.

Lorraine Christensen is a retired Oroville business owner.

Visit link:
Censorship and misinformation what are we to think? | Editor For A Day - Chico Enterprise-Record

COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) One year after YouTube removed from its site a video in which an Ohio attorney touted lies about COVID-19, eight Republicans approved a bill to counter what they called Big Techs suppression of free speech.

In an 8-4 vote Thursday, the Civil Justice Committee approved House Bill 441 to prohibit social media platforms from censoring expression based on a users viewpoint not including speech thats already deemed illegal under federal law, like harassment or shouting fire in a crowded theater.

The bill joins an increasingly national discourse concerned with the uptick in social media sites deplatforming or restricting users ranging from the permanent suspension of former President Donald Trumps Twitter account due to incitement of violence to removing individual Facebook posts promoting Holocaust denial conspiracies.

By preventing Big Tech companies from continuing to engage in viewpoint discrimination, we hope to protect the free exchange of ideas and information in Ohio, Rep. Scott Wiggam (R-Wooster) said in his testimony before the Civil Justice Committee.

While the bill does not equip the state with the power to enforce the censorship ban, it does allow individual Ohioans to file a civil suit against social media companies with more than 50 million U.S. users that block, remove or restrict them from using their site.

Bill co-sponsors Wiggam and Rep. Al Cutrona (R-Canfield) did not respond to requests for comment.

Since January 2020, Twitter has challenged nearly 12 million accounts, suspended more than 8,000 and removed nearly 84,000 posts the social media giant said constituted potentially harmful and misleading information about the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Twitters Transparency Center.

A Fremont attorney who testified against Gov. Mike DeWines COVID-19 shutdown orders before a House committee in 2021 was also the victim of what Wiggam called a government-induced attempt to regulate speech.

A video recording of Thomas Renz was removed from YouTube after the platform determined his speech violated their terms of service by spreading COVID-19 misinformation including a debunked claim that no Ohioans under the age of 19 died from the virus, according to the Associated Press.

Big Tech companies have censored individuals in response to suggestions and pressures from government officials and so have censored Americans on behalf of the government, Wiggam said in his written testimony.

Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio who testified against HB 441, said its unlikely the legislation would survive a legal battle in court.

Unlike government agencies or public entities, social media platforms are private actors and thus arent required to abide by free speech protections under the First Amendment, he said.

These are private entities; they make the decisions whether they have a policy or not, Daniels said. They make these decisions ultimately as to what they want to host or entertain or have on their social media sites.

Ohio itself, Daniels said, could be found in violation of the First Amendment if HB 441 is enacted, as governments are prohibited from compelling speech in other words, forcing an individual or company like Facebook to support or broadcast certain expressions.

Mandating a social media platform to maintain certain content on its site, Daniels said, would be the similar to the government dictating what a newspaper can print or requiring an anti-abortion group to spread messaging supporting a persons right to an abortion.

The idea that the government can do this with private entities would essentially mean all bets are off government controls speech thats out there and will force you to say whatever the government thinks is appropriate, Daniels said.

HB 441 also doesnt clarify what type of action is deemed viewpoint discrimination by social media companies, Daniels said, creating a murky, ambiguous body of law that could open the door for the proliferation of frivolous lawsuits.

It doesnt have to be political speech. It can be for some reason, you know, Facebook wants to remove your cupcake recipe, he said. Everybody agrees they shouldnt be doing something like that thats unfair and not what the people need or want. But again, its their website. Its their social media company.

Cutrona, however, contended that social media platforms act as common carriers like the U.S. Postal Service, phone companies and public transportation that are responsible for the transmission of goods via services open to the general public.

Commons carriers are required to operate with neutrality, which Daniels said explains the fact that the post office cant refuse to deliver a National Rifle Association newsletter because it disagrees with the NRAs speech. And Amtrak, he said, generally does not concern itself with a passengers political views.

These services are affected with a public interest, are public accommodations, are central public forums for public debate, and have enjoyed governmental support in the U.S., Cutrona said in his written testimony. As such, Ohio is well within its rights to stop Big Tech from censoring users based on their viewpoint.

But Daniels said social media giants dont operate or advertise themselves as common carriers, as they obviously exercise control over speech, enforcing myriad speech-related rules within their terms of service.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a similar bill into law allowing residents to sue social media companies over speech violations only to be served with a preliminary injunction blocking its enforcement by a federal judge in June 2021.

The legislation now at issue was an effort to rein in social-media providers deemed too large and too liberal. Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate governmental interest, the Florida judge wrote in his injunction order.

A Texas bill restricting a social media companys ability to regulate users speech was also hit with a preliminary injunction by a federal judge in December 2021.

The judge said the enacted legislation would radically upset the ways in which social media platforms operate by stifling their ability to maintain safe, useful, and enjoyable sites for users.

Content moderation and curation will benefit users and the public by reducing harmful content and providing a safe, useful service, the federal Texas judge wrote in his injunction order.

Despite Daniels certainty that HB 441 will witness a similar fate in court, hes convinced the bills sponsors are using the legislation as a bully pulpitto garner the publics attention toward the issue.

Even the threat of introducing a law, the threat of having a bill out there and passing it into law those types of things they hope, essentially, will cause social media companies to change what they are doing.

Excerpt from:
Ohio bill would allow users to sue Facebook, Twitter over censorship - NBC4 WCMH-TV