Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

Biden FBI to resume colluding with Big Tech after Supreme Court rejects free speech case

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

The most dangerous aspect to the issue is the extent to which the government actively encourages private companies to censor disfavored speech, something in which emails, public statements, congressional investigation, leaked documents, and even open admissions have implicated the Biden administration.

The Biden administration’s FBI intends to resume meetings with social media companies on content decisions, a month after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a bid to stop such coordination as infringing on free speech.

National Review reports that U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s July 2024 report on the DOJ’s “Efforts to Coordinate Information Sharing About Foreign Malign Influence Threats to U.S. Elections” contains a memo stating that the FBI “will resume regular meetings in the coming weeks with social media companies to brief and discuss potential FMI [Foreign Malign Influence] threats involving the companies’ platforms.”

Horowitz’s report “make[s] two recommendations to ensure that DOJ takes a public and strategic approach to sharing information with social media companies in a manner that protects First Amendment rights to combat foreign malign influence directed at U.S. elections,” ostensibly to build trust with the general public.

The first is to “[d]evelop an approach for informing the public about the procedures the Department has put into place to transmit foreign malign influence threat information to social media companies that is protective of First Amendment rights.” The second is to “[d]evelop and implement a comprehensive strategy to ensure that the Department of Justice’s approach to information sharing with social media companies to combat foreign malign influence directed at U.S. elections can adapt to address the evolving threat landscape.”

For years, conservatives and other dissenters from left-wing orthodoxy have criticized the world’s largest online information and communications platforms, including GoogleFacebook, and (until ownership changed hands in late 2022) Twitter, for using their vast influence to slant the news, sources, ideas, and arguments their users see and share through their services. One of their chief rationales for doing so was to prevent “misinformation” from influencing elections, which critics denounce as merely a pretext to sway elections in their favor.

The most dangerous aspect to the issue is the extent to which the government actively encourages private companies to censor disfavored speech, something in which emails, public statementscongressional investigationleaked documents, and even open admissions have implicated the Biden administration.

Starting under the Trump administration and continuing into the Biden White House, the U.S. Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the U.S. State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) have factored heavily into these activities, working with Stanford University and other entities to establish the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP), through which requests to censor “thousands” of conservative posts could be laundered so as to keep the government’s fingerprints off censorship decisions.

The news of the FBI resuming meetings with Big Tech follows the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in June’s Murthy v. Missouri, which concerned whether the federal government “asking” platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube to delete objectionable content constitutes government censorship in violation of the First Amendment. Rather than answer that question, the Court’s majority decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett ruled that the plaintiffs – the states of Louisiana and Missouri as well as social media users themselves – lacked standing to bring the case.

The court’s three most conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, writing that “[w]hen the White House pressured Facebook to amend some of the policies related to speech in which [one plaintiff] engaged, those amendments necessarily impacted some of Facebook’s censorship decisions. Nothing more is needed.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Australian woman fired, dragged before tribunal for saying only women can breastfeed

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

Sussex argued that males who take drugs to lactate should not be experimenting on children, describing it is a “dangerous fetish.”

In yet another blow to free speech in Australia, Jasmine Sussex, a Victorian breastfeeding expert, is being taken to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal for saying that only females can breastfeed their babies.

Sussex argued that males who take drugs to lactate should not be experimenting on children, describing it is a “dangerous fetish.”

Her tweets about an Australian male breastfeeding his infant with a cocktail of lactose-inducing drugs was removed by X (formerly Twitter) for Australian users, although it remained visible to overseas users. The move came after requests from a “government entity or law enforcement agency”, according to Twitter. Sussex was told she had “broken the law” although it was not made clear what law that was.

Sussex was also sacked from the Australian Breastfeeding Association (ABA) for refusing to use gender neutral language. She is one of seven counsellors to be formally investigated by the ABA leadership and one of five to be sacked.

The complaint against Sussex is being brought by Queenslander Jennifer Buckley in Queensland’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Buckley was born male and later identified as a woman and “transitioned.” Buckley acted after a transgender parent complained to the Queensland Human Rights Commission.

Buckley reportedly biologically fathered a baby through IVF and is raising the child with his wife. He posted on social media about taking hormones to grow breasts, explaining: “For the past six weeks I have been taking a drug called domperidone to increase prolactin in an attempt to be able to produce breast milk so that I can have the experience of breastfeeding.”

The case is not just about suppressing a person’s right to say what most would consider to be a statement of the obvious. It raises fundamental questions about how the law is to be crafted and applied.

A legal system depends on clear semantics, the definition of words. The potential confusion that can be created by not having a clear understanding of a person’s sex was exposed in the hearing for US Supreme Court applicant Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Asked to define what a “woman” is, Jackson replied: “I can’t,” adding that she was not a biologist.

This definitional problem has been cynically fudged by mixing up the words “gender” and “sex.” It is claimed that there are 72 genders, by implication turning the question of physical sex into a matter of identity and personal psychology. There are presumably only two sexes.

That is the kind of rhetorical move made by Buckley, who said Sussex’s comments were “hurtful” because he was looking to have “the experience of breastfeeding.” This is analogous to saying that gender differences should be reduced to matters of personal perception, not observable physical characteristics.

In that sense, Sussex and Buckley are talking past each other; the words they use do not have the same meaning. Sussex is saying that objectively only “women” can lactate naturally. It is true that with drug assistance it is possible for “men” to mimic breast feeding to a limited degree. But that is artificial. It is not natural breast feeding. Sussex, who is an experienced consultant on breast feeding, also warns there may be medical issues with “male” breastfeeding that need further examination.

Buckley is arguing that her/his personal experience (of breastfeeding) is what matters and that anyone who questions that is infringing on his rights. He wants to be understood as a “woman” who was a “man”, although he reportedly still possesses male characteristics, such as being able to father a child. This is possible because he feels that way, it is how he “identifies”. But the fact that he has to undergo drug treatment indicates that in a physical sense he is a “man”.

In law, there is always a preference for physical evidence over what people say they are thinking or feeling. The latter is often changeable and difficult to demonstrate; it is poor quality evidence. There should also be an insistence on having an unambiguous understanding of the meaning of words.

On that basis Sussex, who is being represented by the Human Rights Law Alliance, should be able to defend herself effectively. But there is little reason to have confidence in the Australian legal system. It has shown itself to be highly susceptible to politics. The bullying of people who say things once thought to be self-evident may yet continue.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Elon Musk slams woke Los Angeles Times for questioning ‘morality’ of having children

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

‘Extinctionists want a holocaust for all of humanity,’ Elon Musk warned after the far-left Los Angeles Times questioned whether it is ‘right’ to have children.

Pro-free speech tech mogul Elon Musk slammed a woke news outlet for shaming parents for having children.

In a September 14 post on X, formerly known as Twitter, Elon Musk condemned the Los Angeles Times for degrading those who wish to bring children into the world over the claim that doing so may increase “climate change.”

“Extinctionists want a holocaust for all of humanity,” Musk declared.

The post was in response to a September 11 article by the Los Angeles Times titled “It’s almost shameful to want to have children.”

The article, written by a professor of “gender and sexuality studies,” questions the morality of having children, considering the current political and “climate” situation.

“American society feels more socially and politically polarized than ever. Is it right to bring another person into that?” it questioned, suggesting that it would be better not to exist than to live in a society with social tension.

READ: Nobel Prize winner denounces alarmist climate predictions: ‘I don’t believe there is a climate crisis’

The author interviewed seven young people, who the author claimed, “have more climate change knowledge than most people do.” Out of the seven, five did not want to have biological children, while the two who were unsure struggled “with whether it’s morally OK to have children.”

The article’s anti-life message is becoming increasingly commonplace among leftists and reflects the plans lain out by the World Economic Forum to radically reduce the world’s population.

While some climate activists have promoted the idea that the world’s population must be restrained in order to sustain its existing people, numerous studies debunk that claim as well as claims that the earth can only hold 8 billion people or fewer.

Musk has been a longtime advocate for higher birth rates, warning that a “collapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces, by far.”

In 2022, Elon Musk, pointed out that America’s total fertility rate has been below replacement for approximately a half-century.

An August report found that the U.S. fertility rate reached a historic low in 2023, with fewer Americans are having children than ever before, a trend that experts have warned could lead to societal collapse.

Continue Reading

Trending

X