Censorship Industrial Complex
‘Silicon Curtain’ Is Protecting Government Censorship
From Heartland Daily News
By AnneMarie Schieber
Citing Winston Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” metaphor describing the Cold War division of Europe, health care policy expert Dr. Jay Bhattacharya told an audience, “We are now in the middle of a Silicon Curtain of censorship descending across the previously free West.”
In a keynote address at The Heartland Institute’s Benefit Dinner in Chicago on September 13, Bhattacharya said public health is the new “fig leaf” for justifying government censorship.
“Free speech is in dire danger in the U.S.,” said Bhattacharya. “The government will use its power to suppress criticism [of] its own misinformation.”
Bhattacharya is a plaintiff in Murthy v. Missouri, in which the Supreme Court lifted a preliminary injunction directing the Biden administration not to “coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to suppress protected speech” and remanded the case to a lower court.
“This gives a way to the government to censor at will,” said Bhattacharya. “All they have to do is send emails and algorithms to social media companies without naming a single person—just name ideas not allowed to be said online.
“The First Amendment, in effect, is an unenforceable dead letter,” said Bhattacharya.
Under Fire for Opinions
Bhattacharya, a medical doctor and professor of medicine, economics, and health care research policy at Stanford University, rose to prominence when he published The Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) on October 4, 2020, with epidemiologists Martin Kulldorff and Sunetra Gupta. The declaration criticized COVID lockdowns and urged authorities to focus on keeping children in school and protecting the elderly instead of imposing broad-based restrictions.
Although the writers were highly recognized for their work and associated with Stanford, Harvard, and Oxford Universities, respectively, powerful government figures denounced them. Francis Collins, then director of the National Institutes of Health, and Anthony Fauci, then director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, called the trio “fringe epidemiologists” in emails that were made public later.
Ostracized and Blacklisted
Bhattacharya was ostracized by other professors at Stanford and was blacklisted on Twitter. When Elon Musk purchased the social media giant, he discovered the list and shared it with Bhattacharya.
Google “de-boosted” the GBD, which was posted online and signed by more than 940,000 doctors, researchers, and concerned citizens. Facebook banned posting of it altogether.
Using internal government emails they obtained, the plaintiffs showed the government was controlling social media companies by threatening to regulate them out of business if they didn’t abide by the Biden administration’s censorship demands.
The White House also used universities to help with the censorship work, which the government is prohibited from doing directly. Bhattacharya brought up the case of the Stanford Internet Observatory, which received government grants to develop algorithms to target a particular idea. The government shared that information with social media platforms.
Rising Worldwide
Europe, Canada, the U.K., and Australia have led the way on legislation to control speech, Bhattacharya told the audience. The bills and laws ostensibly outlaw violence, pornography, and hate on the internet, carry Orwellian names, and establish authorities to do the enforcement.
These include the Digital Services Act in the E.U., the Online Harms Act in Canada, and the Online Safety Act of 2023 in the U.K. A bill in France establishes a digital “safety” commission for the same purpose.
“It is dangerous to let governments have control over the definition of hate,” said Bhattacharya. “It’s even more dangerous to allow government to determine what is misinformation because science and medicine depend on free speech to operate properly.”
Censoring Political Opponents
Scott Jensen, a medical doctor and Minnesota state senator who ran against Tim Walz for governor in 2022, says his respect for Bhattacharya is immense. Jensen was a prominent critic of COVID-19 policies, and Facebook censored his election page. Jensen lost the race, and Walz went on to implement some of the most draconian COVID-19 restrictions and is Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate in this year’s election for president.
“Dr. Bhattacharya’s willingness to present and stand by a contrarian narrative—which ultimately proved to be profoundly wise—will go down in history as an act of immense courage in the face of smothering government censorship fueled by behemoth, profit-driven technological companies,” said Jensen.
“American’s First Amendment rights are under attack by a political elite, but Dr. Jay Bhattacharya continues to stand in the breach and do whatever is necessary to protect and defend free speech,” said Jensen.
AnneMarie Schieber ([email protected]) is the managing editor of Health Care News.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Canada’s justice minister confirms ‘hate crimes’ bill applies to online content
From LifeSiteNews
Individuals could be criminally charged for social media posts or other online content deemed offensive by the government under the Combating Hate Act.
Canadian Justice Minister Sean Fraser admitted that his new “hate crime” bill would indeed allow a person to be criminally charged for social media posts deemed offensive by the government.
Recently asked about Bill C-9, the Combating Hate Act, Fraser said the bill would indeed apply to certain online content that involves the “willful promotion of hatred.”
“Generally speaking, the law will apply equally online as it does in real communities,” he said, adding, “just in the limited circumstances where there is the willful promotion of hatred against someone.”
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Bill C-9 has been blasted by constitutional experts as allowing empowered police and the government to go after those it deems have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.
Bill C-9 was brought forth in the House of Commons on September 19 by Fraser. The Liberals have boasted that the bill will make it a crime for people to block the entrance to, or intimidate people from attending, a church or other place of worship, a school, or a community center. The bill would also make it a crime to promote so-called hate symbols and would, in effect, ban the display of certain symbols such as the Nazi flag.
While being questioned by Conservative MP Andrew Lawton about Bill C-9, Fraser was asked if the new law would “affect what people can say and write on the internet” and also if people could be retroactively punished for online comments made today.
In reply, Fraser said, “The only circumstance where you could imagine some online comment attracting scrutiny under this law would attach to behaviour that is criminal today but would be punished less severely.”
He said that “(t)he willful promotion of hate is a crime today, but we want to recognize a distinct charge where that same behaviour uses certain symbols of hate to bring a higher degree of culpability.”
John Carpay of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has blasted Bill C-9 as something that would “empower police” and the government to go after those it deems have violated a person’s “feelings” in a “hateful” way.
Also, as reported by LifeSiteNews, Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis called out the hypocrisy of Bill C-9 for being silent regarding rising “Christian hate.”
Lewis has warned before that Bill C-9 will open the door for authorities to prosecute Canadians’ speech deemed “hateful possibly.”
Carpay also lamented how the bill mentions “rising antisemitism” but says nothing about the arson attacks on Catholic and Christian churches plaguing Canada.
“Anti-Catholic hate is obviously not on the minister’s radar. If it were, he would have mentioned it when introducing the Combating Hate Act,” Carpay wrote.
Since taking power in 2015, the Liberal government has introduced numerous new bills that, in effect, censor internet content and restrict people’s ability to express their views.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Who tries to silence free speech? Apparently who ever is in power.
Now that Trump is running Washington, Conservative thinkers must ponder a new-found appreciation for silencing speech they don’t like.
From StosselTV
War on Words: Both Parties Try to Silence Speech They Don’t Like
Donald Trump, before he was reelected, said he’d end government censorship. But now that he’s in office? He calls speech he doesn’t like “illegal.”
Free Speech should be a bedrock American value, no matter who’s in office. After the murder of Charlie Kirk, Republicans, who once complained about censorship, became censors. Democrats suddenly flip-flopped. All politicians should remember, the way to fight speech you don’t like, is with more speech, not censorship.
After 40+ years of reporting, I now understand the importance of limited government and personal freedom.
——————————————
Libertarian journalist John Stossel created Stossel TV to explain liberty and free markets to young people.
Prior to Stossel TV he hosted a show on Fox Business and co-anchored ABC’s primetime newsmagazine show, 20/20.
Stossel’s economic programs have been adapted into teaching kits by a non-profit organization, “Stossel in the Classroom.” High school teachers in American public schools now use the videos to help educate their students on economics and economic freedom. They are seen by more than 12 million students every year.
———
To make sure you receive the weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscrib…
———
-
Business20 hours ago$15B and No Guarantees? Stellantis Deal explained by former Conservative Shadow Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology
-
Agriculture21 hours agoFrom Underdog to Top Broodmare
-
Digital ID2 days agoThousands protest UK government’s plans to introduce mandatory digital IDs
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta’s licence plate vote is down to four
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoIs The Latest Tiger Woods’ Injury Also A Death Knell For PGA Champions Golf?
-
International2 days agoTrump, Putin meeting in Hungary called off
-
Business2 days ago“Modernization,” They Call It: How Ottawa Redefined Fraud as Progress
-
Carbon Tax2 days agoBack Door Carbon Tax: Goal Of Climate Lawfare Movement To Drive Up Price Of Energy
