Heartland Daily News
Aussies Back Down on Blocking ‘X’ Crime Video
![](https://www.todayville.com/edmonton/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/06/tvrd-hdn-australia-flag-image-2024-06-11.jpg)
From Heartland Daily News
Aussies back down on blocking ‘X’ video of a crime after realizing they would have to censor the world.
In a welcome development for people who care about liberty, Australia’s government suspended its efforts to censor the planet. The country’s officials suffered pushback from X (formerly Twitter) and condemnation by free speech advocates after attempting to block anybody, anywhere from seeing video of an attack at a Sydney church. At least for the moment, they’ve conceded defeat based, in part, on recognition that X is protected by American law, making censorship efforts unenforceable.
A Censor Throws In the Towel
“I have decided to discontinue the proceedings in the Federal Court against X Corp in relation to the matter of extreme violent material depicting the real-life graphic stabbing of a religious leader at Wakeley in Sydney on 15 April 2024,” the office of Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, announced last week. “We now welcome the opportunity for a thorough and independent merits review of my decision to issue a removal notice to X Corp by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.”
The free speech battle stems from the stabbing in April of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel and Father Isaac Royel at an Orthodox Christian Church by a 16-year-old in what is being treated as an Islamist terrorist incident. Both victims recovered, but Australian officials quickly sought to scrub graphic video footage of the incident from the internet. Most social media platforms complied, including X, which geoblocked access to video of the attack from Australia pending an appeal of the order.
But Australian officials fretted that their countrymen might use virtual private networks (VPNs) to evade the blocks. The only solution, they insisted, was to suppress access to the video for the whole world. X understandably pushed back out of fear of the precedent that would set for the globe’s control freaks.
Global Content Battle
“Our concern is that if ANY country is allowed to censor content for ALL countries, which is what the Australian ‘eSafety Commissar’ is demanding, then what is to stop any country from controlling the entire Internet?” responded X owner Elon Musk.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) also argued that “no single country should be able to restrict speech across the entire internet” as did the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The organizations jointly sought, and received, intervener status in the case based on “the capacity for many global internet users to be substantially affected.”
In short, officials lost control over a tussle they tried to portray as a righteous battle by servants of the people against, in the words of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, “arrogant billionaire” Elon Musk. Instead, civil libertarians correctly saw it as a battle for free speech against grasping politicians who aren’t content to misgovern their own country but reach for control over people outside their borders.
Worse for them, one of their own judges agreed.
“The removal notice would govern (and subject to punitive consequences under Australian law) the activities of a foreign corporation in the United States (where X Corp’s corporate decision-making occurs) and every country where its servers are located; and it would likewise govern the relationships between that corporation and its users everywhere in the world,” noted Justice Geoffrey Kennett in May as he considered the eSafety commissioner’s application to extend an injunction against access to the stabbing video. “The Commissioner, exercising her power under s 109, would be deciding what users of social media services throughout the world were allowed to see on those services.”
He added, “most likely, the notice would be ignored or disparaged in other countries.”
American Speech Protections Shield the World
This is where the U.S. First Amendment and America’s strong protections for free speech come into play to thwart Australian officials’ efforts to censor the world.
“There is uncontroversial expert evidence that a court in the US (where X Corp is based) would be highly unlikely to enforce a final injunction of the kind sought by the Commissioner,” added Kennett. “Courts rightly hesitate to make orders that cannot be enforced, as it has the potential to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”
Rather than have his government exposed as impotently overreaching to impose its will beyond its borders, Kennett refused to extend the injunction.
Three weeks later, with free speech groups joining the case to argue against eSafety’s censorious ambitions, the agency dropped its legal case pending review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
“We are pleased that the Commissioner saw the error in her efforts and dropped the action,” responded David Greene and Hudson Hongo for EFF. “Global takedown orders threaten freedom of expression around the world, create conflicting legal obligations, and lead to the lowest common denominator of internet content being available around the world, allowing the least tolerant legal system to determine what we all are able to read and distribute online.”
But if the world escaped the grasp of Australia’s censors, the country’s residents may not be so lucky.
Domestic Censorship Politics
The fight between eSafety and X “isn’t actually about the Wakeley church stabbing attacks in April — it’s about how much power the government ultimately hands the commissioner once it’s finished reviewing the Online Safety Act in October,” Ange Lavoipierre wrote for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
“The video in dispute in the case against X has been used, in my opinion, as a vehicle for the federal government to push for powers to compel social media companies to enforce rules of misinformation and disinformation on their platforms,” agrees Morgan Begg of the free-market Institute of Public Affairs, which opposes intrusive government efforts to regulate online content. “The Federal Court’s decision highlights the government’s fixation with censorship.”
That is, the campaign to force X to suppress video of one crime is largely about domestic political maneuvering for power. But it comes as governments around the world—especially that of the European Union—become increasingly aggressive with their plans to control online speech.
If the battle between Australia’s eSafety commissioner and X is any indication, the strongest barrier to international censorship lies in countries—the U.S. in particular—that vigorously protect free speech. From such safe havens, authoritarian officials and their grasping content controls can properly be “ignored or disparaged.”
Originally published by the Reason Foundation. Republished with permission.
Heartland Daily News
U.S. House Oversight Investigates Censorship of Trump Shooting
![](https://www.todayville.com/edmonton/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/08/tvrd-hdn-google-image-2024-08-16.jpg)
From Heartland Daily News
By Casey Harper
“Google users report that autocompleted search prompts related to the assassination attempt of President Trump produced results for failed assassination attempts of former Presidents, including Harry Truman, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan—or even assassinations of historical figures such as Archduke Franz Ferdinand—but omitted from the list of automatically generated search suggestions the recent attempt on President Trump’s life”
U.S. House Oversight Chair Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., launched an investigation Wednesday into allegations that Google and Meta, formerly known as Facebook, censored or misrepresented content about President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris.
Comer sent letters to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google CEO Sundar Pichai Wednesday over the alleged censorship, which grabbed national attention after the near-fatal assassination attempt against Trump in Butler County, Pennsylvania July 13.
How Google and Facebook handled questions and searches about the assassination attempt against Trump sparked criticism.
“Specifically, Meta’s AI assistant claimed, ‘the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump was a ‘fictional’ event,’ even as the chatbot ‘had plenty to say about Democratic rival Kamala Harris’ run for the White House,” Comer wrote, citing a New York Post article. “When asked if the assassination on President Trump was fictional, Meta’s bot responded that there ‘was no real assassination attempt on Donald Trump. I strive to provide accurate and reliable information, but sometimes mistakes can occur.’ The bot further added, ‘[t]o confirm, there has been no credible report or evidence of a successful or attempted assassination of Donald Trump.’”
Facebook’s team also admitted that it censored the photo of a bloody Trump holding his fist in the air just after the shooting, a photo that went viral online and became a rallying point for his campaign.
“This was an error,” Facebook Communications Director Dani Levi wrote on X about the photo. “This fact check was initially applied to a doctored photo showing the secret service agents smiling, and in some cases our systems incorrectly applied that fact check to the real photo. This has been fixed and we apologize for the mistake.”
“Google users report that autocompleted search prompts related to the assassination attempt of President Trump produced results for failed assassination attempts of former Presidents, including Harry Truman, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan—or even assassinations of historical figures such as Archduke Franz Ferdinand—but omitted from the list of automatically generated search suggestions the recent attempt on President Trump’s life,” Comer wrote.
Google told CBS MoneyWatch that the search issues were technical “anomalies” that were unintentional and could affect anyone.
Comer’s investigation is calling for documents and answers on how Google’s search and autocomplete works. Google staff briefed the committee earlier this month.
“In response to preliminary staff inquiries, Google contends that the Autocomplete results omitted the Trump assassination attempt due to a safety protocol concerning predicted assassination attempts of current political leaders, and Google had not yet updated the Autocomplete feature to reflect that an assassination attempt of President Trump had occurred,” Comer wrote.
In his letter to Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, formerly known as Facebook, Comer pointed out that the executive branch regulates the tech companies that can have bias in determining who runs the executive branch.
“The Committee has long been concerned with how large technology companies leverage their businesses to influence public opinion—especially the design and use of content moderation policies within private sector social media companies—and how company policies are shaped and influenced by Executive Branch officials,” Comer wrote in his letter to Zuckerberg.
After the issues last month, Trump blasted both companies online, saying “here we go again” and calling it “rigging the election,” an apparent reference to how social media companies at the urging of the FBI censored news stories about the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation but the laptop later was found to be real.
Originally published by The Center Square. Republished with permission.
Agriculture
Don’t Buy the Media Lies About Crop Production
![](https://www.todayville.com/edmonton/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/07/tvrd-hdn-rice-farming-agriculture-crops-food-image-2024-07-31.jpg)
From Heartland Daily News
By Linnea Lueken
One of the mainstream media’s favorite pastimes in recent years has been trying to scare the pants off everyone by suggesting that climate change is decimating crop production around the world. They are either lying intentionally, or mistaken. However, in either case, there is some journalistic malpractice going on, as well as a notable failure of logic.
We have all seen the stories, the favorites of the media usually have to do with foods that are popular semi-luxury items, depending on where you live, like cocoa beans, coffee, and wine.
For instance, Forbes put out an article claiming that cocoa, olive oil, rice, and soybeans are all “particularly vulnerable” to the effects of “climate-induced stressors.” I will be looking at this article as a case study of sorts for the kind of bad journalism I am talking about.
I am not going to get into whether or not extreme weather is getting worse or not, or climate specific subjects in this op-ed. What I am aiming to do is debunk the climate-related alarmism surrounding food production.
That Forbes article in particular stuck out to me because I already knew from the second sentence that it was nonsense based on previous work I have done looking into production and yields for all the crops listed. First, the bait and switch: Forbes’ article title, “Climate Change’s Toll On Global Agriculture: A Looming Crisis,” and introductory paragraph contain no indication that what is about to be discussed actually is not a global problem, but a regional one, and sometimes the problem does not exist at all.
For cocoa beans, they focus on West Africa, for olive oil the Mediterranean region, for rice they chose Italy and India, and for soybeans the United States and South America. In each of those regions, the overall trend for their crop production is positive.
Globally, every single crop listed by Forbes, according to data from the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, has broken all-time records for production and yields year after year. On occasion, there is a less good year, but the trendline remains positive.
Since 1990, when the worst effects of climate change supposedly began to manifest, world production of cocoa beans has increased 132 percent, setting an all-time high in 2022. Olive oil has seen a rise of 124 percent. Overall rice production has risen 49 percent since 1990, and India alone saw a 75 percent increase. Soybeans, in part subsidized by the U.S. government, are certainly not struggling in this country, and worldwide soybean production has risen 221 percent.
All of this information is easy to find for the curious; you do not need to take Forbes’ or my word for anything.
This isn’t to say, again, that certain regions don’t suffer bad seasons, but this is a natural risk of farming, and nothing crop producers haven’t seen before. The media is fearmongering in order to weaken resistance to their preferred public policy goals.
There are, according to Our World in Data, around 570 million farms throughout the world. The vast majority of those are small farms, which make it exceedingly difficult for them to adapt to any weather, regardless of whether or not extreme weather is getting worse. Every single season, for every single crop, there is some region or individual farm suffering from poor yields due to the weather.
That is a whole lot of fodder for human-interest stories for propagandist journalists to choose between when they want to push a narrative. Since we are so connected worldwide now thanks to the internet and instantaneous communications, we get to hear about a wealth of stories that we never would have heard about otherwise, and likely would not even have been covered at all in the West. This generates a sense that crop failures are happening more often, but they’re not.
This also is not to say that global crop shortages do not or cannot occur – they do, they can, due to weather or geopolitical issues.
The best way to guarantee that those positive crop production trendlines reverse would be to ban the things the propagandists want us to ban, like diesel tractors, pesticides, and synthetic fertilizers. Just ask the farmer of Sri Lanka. Or ask the people who never had those things but would like to have them, like the subsistence farmers of Africa.
My advice is to dig a little deeper when the media hypes crop failures because in most cases there is more going on than our journalist gatekeepers admit.
Linnea Lueken ([email protected]) is a research fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.
Originally published by The Center Square. Republished with permission.
-
Addictions2 days ago
B.C. parents powerless to help their addicted teens
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
Dear Vladdy: Now, A Few Helpful Words From Vladimir Putin
-
Alberta2 days ago
BMX Bandit: Sylvan Lake bank robber suspect escapes on BMX
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta to introduce bill to make sex-ed classes in schools optional
-
Alberta2 days ago
Edmonton man connected to U.S. child sex abuse investigation
-
Addictions16 hours ago
B.C. addiction centre should not accept drug industry funds
-
National15 hours ago
Four years, $10,000, one frog: Inside Parks Canada’s costly frog cull
-
National1 day ago
Poilievre calls for immediate election after NDP pulls support from Trudeau’s Liberals