Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Censorship Industrial Complex

‘Silicon Curtain’ Is Protecting Government Censorship

Published

6 days ago

6 minute read

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.

 

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Health / 46 mins ago

Doctor withholds results of study that fails to show transitioning improves kids’ health

Daily Caller / 3 hours ago

Nearly 1 Million Illegal Migrants Benefiting From ‘Quiet Amnesty’ Under Biden Admin, House Report Reveals

Daily Caller / 9 hours ago

EXCLUSIVE: GOP Lawmakers Press Biden-Harris Admin Over Alleged Cover-Up Behind Major Fossil Fuel Crackdown

Alberta

Alberta Bill of Rights amendments will allow individuals like Jordan Peterson to speak freely

Published on October 23, 2024

By

Alberta’s government considers legislative changes to safeguard freedom of expression for regulated professionals.

In response to increasing concerns that regulated professional bodies may be going too far in limiting individual freedom of expression and imposing compulsory training beyond the scope of their professional practice, Alberta’s government is launching an engagement this fall that will include hearing directly from affected members.

As part of the province’s commitment to protecting the civil liberties of all Albertans, the government is considering legislative changes to clarify that professional regulatory bodies are limited to regulating members’ professional competence and behaviour. The engagement will ensure that professional regulatory bodies uphold the rights and freedoms of their members, and that Albertans can share their experiences and opinions.

“Freedom of expression is a bedrock in a democratic society. We’re committed to standing up for Albertans’ freedom and that includes ensuring Albertans are not coerced into self-censorship because of threats from their professional regulated bodies. Organizations that regulate professionals must strike a balance that upholds competence and ethics without restricting members’ rights and freedoms and we are working to ensure that balance is met.”

Danielle Smith, Premier

“We have heard from professionals receiving complaints from regulators, and in some cases facing actual disciplinary action for expressing personal beliefs and opinions unrelated to their professional competencies. This situation could result in self-censorship and infringe on their ability to speak and express opinions freely. We are initiating this review to ensure members’ rights and freedoms are protected.”

Mickey Amery, Minister of Justice and Attorney General

Eleven ministries with regulated professions in scope for this review will collect information and engage with professional regulatory bodies and other relevant groups as needed to inform policy decision-making.

The review will be informed by input from professional regulatory bodies, regulated professionals and other organizations, associations or experts. These groups will be invited to share their views on whether regulatory oversight goes beyond professional competence and ethics in areas such as freedom of expression and opinion, training not related to professional competence, vexatious and bad faith complaints, third-party complaints and protection for those holding other roles in addition to their role as a regulated professional.

Quick facts

  • Professional regulatory bodies protect the public interest by setting standards of competence and conduct for their members and disciplining those who fail to meet them.
  • The right to freedom of expression is protected under Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • The review will include 118 regulated professional bodies under the mandates of 11 ministries.
    • These 118 professions and trades are governed by 67 different regulatory bodies. This number includes some provincial government ministries that directly regulate professions.
  • Each ministry did an inventory of the regulated professions under their mandates and determined which should be included in the review. Professions may be excluded from the review if:
    • They are not self-regulating.
    • Regulation for the profession is not yet in force.
    • There is no regulatory body or means to handle public complaints or disciplinary action against any member.
    • There is little or no regulatory role beyond certification.

Related information

 

Continue Reading

Business

Elon Musk declares ‘war’ over plot to ‘kill’ X by NGO linked to Kamala Harris, Keir Starmer

Published on October 23, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

Elon Musk said ‘this is war’ after a plan to ‘kill Twitter’ (now X) was exposed by two journalists. The Center for Countering Digital Hate is considered an ‘ally’ of U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and its founder is now advising Kamala Harris.

The world’s most successful African-American, Elon Musk, has declared “this is war” after a plan to “kill Twitter” (now X) was revealed.

Leaked documents published by Twitter files journalist Matt Taibbi and Paul Thacker show how an NGO linked to both Kamala Harris and the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in a “real foreign election interference story.”

As Taibbi and Thacker reported on October 22: “Internal documents from the Center for Countering Digital Hate – whose founder is British political operative Morgan McSweeney, now advising the Kamala Harris campaign – show the group plans in writing to “kill Musk’s Twitter” while strengthening ties with the Biden/Harris administration and Democrats like Senator Amy Klobuchar, who has introduced multiple bills to regulate online ‘misinformation.’”

Following the publication of the report, X owner Elon Musk responded with three explosive words:

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) is a pro-censorship pressure group and “ally of Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party,” according to the joint report. McSweeney, who founded the group, has ties so close to the Democratic Party that Politico has called Labour and the Democrats “sister parties.”

The leaks expose a partnership between the U.K. Labour Party and the Democrats to make good on a plan that has been months in the making – to rid the globalists on both sides of the Atlantic of Elon Musk’s free speech platform.

The same tactics are now being used against X, the report continues: “Now, CCDH’s growing Washington office is working on similar plans to ‘kill’ the online presence of Democratic rivals like Musk by attacking X’s advertising revenue.”

Whilst Donald Trump was banned from the platform whilst serving as president, Musk’s tenure has seen the rocket launching billionaire clash directly with U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer over the Labour leader’s draconian “two-tier” policing.

Musk had described Starmer as wanting “Soviet Britain,” expressing alarm at Britons “arrested for posting on Facebook.” It seems that war had already been declared on Musk, and his remark was more an acknowledgement of hostilities already well underway.

This is the second attempt on the life of the platform. The move follows efforts in 2023 by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to “kill this platform,” which pressured advertisers to defund X – leading to an estimated loss of $22 billion.

In a September 4, 2023 post, Musk claimed that the league was “trying to kill this platform by falsely accusing it & me of being anti-Semitic.” Musk threatened to sue the Anti-Defamation League – for defaming him, and for the massive loss of revenue resulting from its defamatory campaign.

Evidence of ties to the “Deep State” in the plot to “kill Twitter” has been uncovered, showing how the CCDH’s chairman is also on the Atlantic Council.

As Mike Benz reported in July 2023, “The Chairman of CCDH’s Board is Simon Clark, straight outta the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Lab. Atlantic Council has 7 former CIA directors on its board and is funded by the UK Foreign Office (and the US State Dept and US Department of Defense.”

Benz, a well-known critic and analyst of the Deep State, showed that the “anti-disinformation” group’s former communication chief was a “self-described CIA operative.”

His evidence shows that the U.K. government-backed censorship group is also linked through the Atlantic Council to Biden family connection Burisma.

“The Atlantic Council was also directly partnered with Burisma and had a direct partnership with DHS to censor Trump supporters ahead of the 2020 election,” Benz said in a post on October 22, adding that the Atlantic Council has “7 CIA directors on its board.”

The plot to silence the world’s leading free speech platform reveals a deep network of UK and US government coordination through its many proxies to destroy any challenge to its narrative control.

An in-depth report by Zerohedge, which survived a shutdown attack by the CCDH last year, shows a breathtaking network of covert and overt operations with enormous power in the U.S. going back years.

Zerohedge published evidence of a 2020 campaign by the CCDH directing state attorneys general to deplatform the “Disinformation Dozen” of twelve leading COVID “vaccine” critics – including Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

As Zerohedge notes, “However, these are only the visible parts of the British invasion. McSweeney’s Labour Together has been operating in the U.S. for several years through CCDH.”

Yet this transatlantic conspiracy goes beyond the business of limiting speech – and defunding those who defend its freedom. Reports now show direct interference in the U.S. presidential election.

The Trump-Vance campaign has filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against Starmer’s ruling Labour Party after it publicized moves to “recruit and send … far-left party members” members to canvass for Kamala Harris “in critical battleground states.”

In a statement titled “The British Are Coming!” Trump-Vance campaign co-manager Susie Wiles said “the failing Harris campaign is seeking foreign influence to boost its radical message” – charging that this amounts to “election interference.”

The move comes alongside reports comparing both Trump and Elon Musk to Hitler. Musk responded to the charge in Germany’s Der Spiegel with a humourous tweet which was immediately used by CNN to re-Hitlerize him.

The exposure of this second plot to “kill Twitter” shows Elon Musk, Robert F. Kennedy, and now Trump and Vance themselves, directly targeted by a globalist “Grand Atlantic Alliance” and its covert and overt agents.

This amounts to a mission not only against these men, but against regime-critical media from across the political spectrum. This is a scandal which reveals the mechanism by which permanent rule is intended to be secured.

With Musk’s declaration, the first shots have been fired in a war for the future of freedom of speech – and for the nature of the free world itself.

Continue Reading

Trending

X