Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Censorship Industrial Complex

Assistant AG tells House committee she’s ‘not familiar’ with major social media censorship lawsuit

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Ashley Sadler

“If the allegations made by the plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack on free speech in United States history”

The assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division stunned a Republican lawmaker in a Tuesday hearing when she said she hadn’t heard of a major First Amendment lawsuit currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case alleges that members of the Biden administration colluded with social media companies to suppress content deemed to be “misinformation,” including COVID-19-related content and information related to Hunter Biden.

In a Tuesday hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, Assistant AG Kristen Clarke said she was “not familiar” with the ongoing litigation in the first amendment lawsuit Missouri v. Biden, a major case that LifeSiteNews has extensively covered.

Clarke made the remarks after Republican U.S. Rep. Dan Bishop of North Carolina cited a July 4 opinion by Judge Terry Doughty stating that the plaintiffs “are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.” 

“If the allegations made by the plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack on free speech in United States history,’” Doughty said in his opinion, which Rep. Bishop referenced in the Tuesday hearing. The U.S. Supreme Court has subsequently agreed to take up the case, now dubbed Murthy v. Missouri.

READ: Supreme Court will decide whether Biden admin illegally pushed Big Tech to censor conservatives

Noting that the litigation has been strictly civil to date, Bishop asked Clarke whether “any criminal investigation or criminal prosecution of the persons responsible for that activity” is “underway in the [DOJ] civil rights division?”

“Congressman, I’m not familiar with this litigation, but [I’m] happy to bring your question back,” Clarke said.

Bishop asked Clarke to confirm whether she was saying she was “not aware of the Missouri v. Biden litigation that is currently being taken up by the United States Supreme Court.”

“Is that correct?” Bishop said.

As LifeSiteNews has reported, the First Amendment lawsuit argues that numerous Biden administration officials had “colluded with and/or coerced social-media platforms to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content.”

“In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech,” the lawsuit claims.

The plaintiffs in the case are two states, Missouri and Louisiana, along with three doctors who have publicly spoken out against the prevailing COVID-19 narrative: Aaron Kheriaty, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, and Dr. Jayanta “Jay” Bhattacharya. Co-Director of Health Freedom Louisiana Jill Hines and Jim Hoft, owner of the news site The Gateway Pundit, are also plaintiffs in the case.

RELATED: This Supreme Court case could strike a blow against the Deep State and Big Tech

In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed the suit to proceed against the Surgeon General as well as members of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, the CDC, and the FBI.

According to the filing, the plaintiffs allege that government officials employed “public pressure campaigns, private meetings, and other forms of direct communication” against so-called “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “malinformation,” and “colluded with and/or coerced social-media platforms to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social-media platforms.”

Per the Fifth Circuit, the plaintiffs “had posts and stories removed or downgraded by” social media companies that government officials had “urged … to remove disfavored content and accounts from their sites.”

The federal court noted that the plaintiffs said the content that was “removed or downgraded” had “touched on a host of divisive topics like the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story.”

“The Plaintiffs maintain that although the platforms stifled their speech, the government officials were the ones pulling the strings,” the ruling stated.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in late October to take up the case, though it has allowed the Biden administration to continue its communications with social media companies in the meantime.

Censorship Industrial Complex

CBC continues to push unproven unmarked graves claim, implies ‘denialism’ should be criminalized

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The CBC has published yet another article implicitly promoting the unproven claim that former residential school sites contain the unmarked graves of Indigenous students, citing activist who want dissent from the official narrative criminalized.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is still pushing the unproven claim that unmarked graves have been discovered at former residential schools while implicitly calling for “residential school denialism” to be criminalized.   

In an October 31 article, the state-funded CBC highlighted former residential school attendees who called for punishments for “residential school denialism,” implying citizens should be punished for denying the existence of unmarked graves despite the fact that no bodies have been found.

“Residential school survivors are calling on Canada to criminalize residential school denialism, echoing one of the findings in a report about unmarked graves and burial sites associated with the institutions,” the government-funded outlet claimed. 

According to former students of the schools, those who oppose the mainstream narrative, by pointing out that no unmarked graves have been discovered or that some children benefitted from the schools, which some former students themselves have attested, should be silenced.    

Alarmingly, this suggestion to criminalize the denial of an unproven claim is supported by a New Democratic Party (NDP) MP who recently introduced a bill which would charge those who “promote hatred against Indigenous peoples by condoning, denying, downplaying or justifying the Indian residential school system in Canada.” 

While the CBC report rigorously outlines the dangers of so-called “denialism,” it failed to mention the above discrepancies in the official narrative.

Residential schools, while run by both the Catholic Church and other Christian churches, were mandated and set-up by the federal government and ran from the late 19th century until the last school closed in 1996.        

While some children did tragically die at the once-mandatory boarding schools, evidence has revealed  that many of the children passed away as a result of unsanitary conditions due to underfunding by the federal government, not the Catholic Church.  

As a consequence, since 2021, when the mainstream media ran with inflammatory and dubious claims  that hundreds of children were buried and disregarded by Catholic priests and nuns who ran some of the schools, over 100 churches have been burned or vandalized across Canada in seeming retribution.

In fact, in 2021, Trudeau waited weeks before acknowledging the church vandalism, and when he did speak, said it is “understandable” that churches have been burned while acknowledging it to be “unacceptable and wrong.”     

Similarly, in February, Liberal and NDP MPs quickly shut down a Conservative motion to condemn an attack against a Catholic church in Regina, Saskatchewan. The motion was shut down even though there was surveillance footage of a man, who was later arrested, starting the fire.   

Additionally, in October 2023, Liberal and NDP MPs voted to adjourn rather than consider a motion that would denounce the arson and vandalism against 83 Canadian churches, especially those within Indigenous communities.    

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

Betting Site CEO Slams FBI Raid and Device Seizures As Politically Driven After Site Correctly Calls Trump’s Election Win

Published on

 By

Early Wednesday morning, Shayne Coplan, CEO of the betting platform Polymarket, which has been popular for election betting, was awakened by a dramatic FBI raid on his Soho apartment. This event occurred shortly after the platform had accurately predicted Donald Trump’s overwhelming win in the recent election, according to The Post.

At around 6 a.m., federal agents demanded that Coplan hand over his phone and other electronics. Critics have called the raid an unnecessary display of force, meant to intimidate and influence public perception for political ends.

A close source expressed frustration, stating, “They could have asked his lawyer for any of these things. Instead, they staged a so-called raid so they can leak it to the media and use it for obvious political reasons.”

Coplan himself commented on the incident, expressing his disappointment with what he perceives as a politically motivated action by the Biden administration. “It’s discouraging that the current administration would seek a last-ditch effort to go after companies they deem to be associated with political opponents. We are deeply committed to being non-partisan, and today is no different, but the incumbents should do some self-reflecting and recognize that taking a more pro-business, pro-startup approach may be what would have changed their fate this election,” he stated.

He also highlighted Polymarket’s role in the election, serving tens of millions without causing harm, and reaffirmed his optimism about the future of American entrepreneurship.

No official reason has been provided for the raid, but the source, and Coplan himself, suspects political motives, particularly given Polymarket’s successful forecast of Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris, contrary to most traditional polls.

Continue Reading

Trending

X