Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

At yesterday’s Sunset Section 230 press conference, Joseph Gordon-Levitt made it clear: when platforms profit from harm, they should be held accountable. Section 230 has allowed tech giants to dodge responsibility while exploitation, trafficking, and abuse spread online — the Sunset Section 230 Act would finally end that blanket...

NCOSE's profile picture

National Center on Sexual Exploitation

11,932 subscribers

19,791 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

TUCKER CARLSON: SECTION 230 MADE BIG TECH UNTOUCHABLE "Section 230 is a section within the 1996 Communications Decency Act, and it is the piece of legislation often credited for creating the internet. It's the framework that Congress came up with at the dawn of the internet to put parameters around what this is, to protect companies as they grew, to set laws around this new technology. One of the laws that they made, Section 230, shields internet providers' platforms from lawsuits. It gives them legal liability from lawsuits on the basis of slander, obscenity, and things that are on their platforms that they didn't create. The distinction allows the platforms to let other people post whatever they want without getting sued for it. They cannot be held liable. These big companies cannot be held liable for slander, hate speech, or anything really on their platforms. As a result of this law, those platforms have come to dominate news and information globally." Source: Tucker Carlson
0:59

TUCKER CARLSON: SECTION 230 MADE BIG TECH UNTOUCHABLE "Section 230 is a section within the 1996 Communications Decency Act, and it is the piece of legislation often credited for creating the internet. It's the framework that Congress came up with at the dawn of the internet to put parameters around what this is, to protect companies as they grew, to set laws around this new technology. One of the laws that they made, Section 230, shields internet providers' platforms from lawsuits. It gives them legal liability from lawsuits on the basis of slander, obscenity, and things that are on their platforms that they didn't create. The distinction allows the platforms to let other people post whatever they want without getting sued for it. They cannot be held liable. These big companies cannot be held liable for slander, hate speech, or anything really on their platforms. As a result of this law, those platforms have come to dominate news and information globally." Source: Tucker Carlson

Mario Nawfal

213,568 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

REPORT: Washington has finally found a monster big enough to unite both parties, and it is coming straight for your privacy. Lawmakers are advancing a sweeping “child safety” agenda that looks less like protection and more like the opening move toward a nationwide Digital ID system. The UnAnxious Generation package ties legal immunity to aggressive content policing and demands an “Age Signal” before anyone can open an app. The Deepfake Liability Act rewrites Section 230, the only shield that lets platforms host political speech without getting sued. The Parents Over Platforms Act goes further, requiring developers to “determine whether a user is an Adult or a Minor with a reasonable level of certainty,” something impossible without pushing every adult into age verification, in other words: Digital ID. Lawmakers call it a bipartisan stand for kids. In reality, it could decide what you’re allowed to do online. Watch ZeeeMediaOfficial's full report to see what they’re not saying out loud. 👇
12:29

REPORT: Washington has finally found a monster big enough to unite both parties, and it is coming straight for your privacy. Lawmakers are advancing a sweeping “child safety” agenda that looks less like protection and more like the opening move toward a nationwide Digital ID system. The UnAnxious Generation package ties legal immunity to aggressive content policing and demands an “Age Signal” before anyone can open an app. The Deepfake Liability Act rewrites Section 230, the only shield that lets platforms host political speech without getting sued. The Parents Over Platforms Act goes further, requiring developers to “determine whether a user is an Adult or a Minor with a reasonable level of certainty,” something impossible without pushing every adult into age verification, in other words: Digital ID. Lawmakers call it a bipartisan stand for kids. In reality, it could decide what you’re allowed to do online. Watch ZeeeMediaOfficial's full report to see what they’re not saying out loud. 👇

Vigilant Fox 🦊

38,539 görüntüleme • 8 ay önce

Excuse the Bill Ackman type novel but I can’t believe how many ppl on the left are falling for this! Repealing Section 230 isn’t about holding big tech accountable—it’s about **cementing their dominance** while devastating smaller platforms, independent creators, everyday users, and the open, innovative internet as we know it. The rhetoric around repeal often frames it as a way to force "Big Tech" (like Meta, Google, or X) to face consequences for harmful content, misinformation, or poor moderation. But in practice, removing the liability shield for user-generated content would backfire spectacularly on that goal. Big Tech companies have massive legal teams, billions in cash reserves, and entrenched market power. They could absorb the flood of lawsuits that would follow repeal—defending against defamation claims, product liability suits, or any user-posted harm—while continuing to operate largely as before. Smaller competitors, startups, nonprofits, forums, review sites, and emerging platforms would be crushed under the same legal costs and risks, unable to afford robust defenses or even basic moderation at scale. This would reduce competition, entrench monopolies, and make the dominant players even harder to challenge. Experts from groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have pointed out repeatedly that Section 230 protects users and smaller services far more than the giants—it's why some Big Tech figures have even endorsed gutting it in certain proposals. Repeal would lead to over-cautious moderation (removing anything remotely “risky” to avoid suits), under-moderation in some cases, or outright shutdowns of user-driven features like comments, reviews, and sharing. That doesn't punish Big Tech; it hands them an even bigger moat while chilling free expression, innovation, speech and access for everyone else. True accountability for platform harms—like better child safety tools, algorithmic transparency, or antitrust enforcement—requires targeted reforms, not blanket repeal that plays into the hands of the very companies critics claim to target. The push often stems from misunderstandings or political posturing, but the outcome would make the internet smaller, less diverse, and more controlled by a handful of already insanely powerful oligarchs. WAKE UP!
5:01

Excuse the Bill Ackman type novel but I can’t believe how many ppl on the left are falling for this! Repealing Section 230 isn’t about holding big tech accountable—it’s about **cementing their dominance** while devastating smaller platforms, independent creators, everyday users, and the open, innovative internet as we know it. The rhetoric around repeal often frames it as a way to force "Big Tech" (like Meta, Google, or X) to face consequences for harmful content, misinformation, or poor moderation. But in practice, removing the liability shield for user-generated content would backfire spectacularly on that goal. Big Tech companies have massive legal teams, billions in cash reserves, and entrenched market power. They could absorb the flood of lawsuits that would follow repeal—defending against defamation claims, product liability suits, or any user-posted harm—while continuing to operate largely as before. Smaller competitors, startups, nonprofits, forums, review sites, and emerging platforms would be crushed under the same legal costs and risks, unable to afford robust defenses or even basic moderation at scale. This would reduce competition, entrench monopolies, and make the dominant players even harder to challenge. Experts from groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have pointed out repeatedly that Section 230 protects users and smaller services far more than the giants—it's why some Big Tech figures have even endorsed gutting it in certain proposals. Repeal would lead to over-cautious moderation (removing anything remotely “risky” to avoid suits), under-moderation in some cases, or outright shutdowns of user-driven features like comments, reviews, and sharing. That doesn't punish Big Tech; it hands them an even bigger moat while chilling free expression, innovation, speech and access for everyone else. True accountability for platform harms—like better child safety tools, algorithmic transparency, or antitrust enforcement—requires targeted reforms, not blanket repeal that plays into the hands of the very companies critics claim to target. The push often stems from misunderstandings or political posturing, but the outcome would make the internet smaller, less diverse, and more controlled by a handful of already insanely powerful oligarchs. WAKE UP!

B L A K E L E Y™℠©® LLC

12,075 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

“This is a betrayal of MAHA.” Rep. Jim McGovern just went nuclear on Republicans’ plan to give Bayer total immunity to mass poison Americans with glyphosate. And he delivered an urgent plea to MAHA. You need to hear this—before it’s too late: “I’m a Democrat. I know we don’t agree on everything, but … I share your outrage.” Republicans’ 2026 Farm Bill would hand foreign chemical companies legal immunity for harms caused by their products—including glyphosate-based herbicides. Rep. McGovern called it a blatant betrayal of the MAHA moms who delivered Trump to the White House in 2024. Here’s how we’re fighting back, and how you can join our fight: “This bill grants corporate immunity to the chemical companies—Section 10205.” “Section 10206 goes on to prevent localities from regulating pesticides.” Section 10207 serves the same purpose as 10206. Furthermore, Section 10201 would exempt plants that have been genetically modified to create their own pesticides from regulation. We are demanding that Republicans eliminate these Sections from the Farm Bill immediately. We are demanding that Republicans uphold the promises they made to MAHA voters in 2024. We are demanding that Republicans preserve our constitutional right to sue pesticide companies when their products poison us. Time is running short to fight back. We need you to join our fight today. We put together a step-by-step guide for you to demand that Republicans eliminate these Sections from the Farm Bill in just 2 minutes. Use the link below to take action:🧵 Rep. Jim McGovern
3:03

“This is a betrayal of MAHA.” Rep. Jim McGovern just went nuclear on Republicans’ plan to give Bayer total immunity to mass poison Americans with glyphosate. And he delivered an urgent plea to MAHA. You need to hear this—before it’s too late: “I’m a Democrat. I know we don’t agree on everything, but … I share your outrage.” Republicans’ 2026 Farm Bill would hand foreign chemical companies legal immunity for harms caused by their products—including glyphosate-based herbicides. Rep. McGovern called it a blatant betrayal of the MAHA moms who delivered Trump to the White House in 2024. Here’s how we’re fighting back, and how you can join our fight: “This bill grants corporate immunity to the chemical companies—Section 10205.” “Section 10206 goes on to prevent localities from regulating pesticides.” Section 10207 serves the same purpose as 10206. Furthermore, Section 10201 would exempt plants that have been genetically modified to create their own pesticides from regulation. We are demanding that Republicans eliminate these Sections from the Farm Bill immediately. We are demanding that Republicans uphold the promises they made to MAHA voters in 2024. We are demanding that Republicans preserve our constitutional right to sue pesticide companies when their products poison us. Time is running short to fight back. We need you to join our fight today. We put together a step-by-step guide for you to demand that Republicans eliminate these Sections from the Farm Bill in just 2 minutes. Use the link below to take action:🧵 Rep. Jim McGovern

Stand for Health Freedom

20,680 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

Reshare this because we can’t let this be forgotten We must Restore the Smith-Mundt Act and name it The Charlie Kirk Act to finally end mainstream media propaganda in America “President Trump — revisit what Barack Obama and Joe Biden got rid of back in 2013, which is the Smith-Mundt Act, which held news corporations accountable for lying to the American people and spreading propaganda instead of truth. I think instead of bringing it back as a Smith-Mundt Act, you name it the Charlie Kirk Act You make it a law, and you make it damn near impossible for these people to continue to lie to the American public, which has brought chaos, hatred, division, and anarchy all across this country. Finds out the ass which will damn near bankrupt their company should they lie to the American people ever again. They can have their opinions, that's fine. They need to state that it is their opinion and that it is not a fact. Because of their constant lies, a man lost his life over it. Because of the constant hateful rhetoric of calling him a fascist and a Nazi and a white supremacist and a bigot, the same thing that they called you. This man is dead. I think this would be a great legacy for him to have a law named after him to force journalists to finally start telling the truth and having the integrity that they have lacked for over a decade. I hope that this gets to you. I hope that you think about it and that you pass it into law because we are on a dangerous path right now with the constant lies and the propaganda. And that doesn't end just at news journalists. It needs to go to content creators who consistently spread lies and propaganda and half-truths across the internet. This needs to end. And people need to start being held accountable for baseless claims over absolute abysmal things. It needs to end. So please, if you have it in your heart to have the time to do this, get this in front of Congress, get this passed as a law, and start holding these news corporations be they right, left, or center accountable for their behavior”
2:12

Reshare this because we can’t let this be forgotten We must Restore the Smith-Mundt Act and name it The Charlie Kirk Act to finally end mainstream media propaganda in America “President Trump — revisit what Barack Obama and Joe Biden got rid of back in 2013, which is the Smith-Mundt Act, which held news corporations accountable for lying to the American people and spreading propaganda instead of truth. I think instead of bringing it back as a Smith-Mundt Act, you name it the Charlie Kirk Act You make it a law, and you make it damn near impossible for these people to continue to lie to the American public, which has brought chaos, hatred, division, and anarchy all across this country. Finds out the ass which will damn near bankrupt their company should they lie to the American people ever again. They can have their opinions, that's fine. They need to state that it is their opinion and that it is not a fact. Because of their constant lies, a man lost his life over it. Because of the constant hateful rhetoric of calling him a fascist and a Nazi and a white supremacist and a bigot, the same thing that they called you. This man is dead. I think this would be a great legacy for him to have a law named after him to force journalists to finally start telling the truth and having the integrity that they have lacked for over a decade. I hope that this gets to you. I hope that you think about it and that you pass it into law because we are on a dangerous path right now with the constant lies and the propaganda. And that doesn't end just at news journalists. It needs to go to content creators who consistently spread lies and propaganda and half-truths across the internet. This needs to end. And people need to start being held accountable for baseless claims over absolute abysmal things. It needs to end. So please, if you have it in your heart to have the time to do this, get this in front of Congress, get this passed as a law, and start holding these news corporations be they right, left, or center accountable for their behavior”

Wall Street Apes

67,561 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

QUESTION: What is the relationship between section 91(2)—the term limit provision—and section 95(2)—the term length provision in the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013)? ANSWER: Section 91(2) is the term-limit provision. It regulates the President’s tenure by limiting the length of time that he or she may hold or occupy the Presidency as a public officer to a maximum of two terms—whether consecutive or not—where three or more years’ service is deemed a full term. By contrast, section 95(2) is the term-length provision. It regulates the electoral cycle of the Presidency as an office or institution by defining a single term as five years (now proposed to be seven years under Clause 4 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) H.B. 1 Bill, 2026). The relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2) is therefore as clear and straightforward as that between a truck driver and a 500 km highway: section 91(2) limits the driver, while section 95(2) defines the length of the highway. Section 91(2) caps the time any individual may occupy the Presidency; section 95(2) sets the institutional length or duration of each presidential term or electoral cycle. This distinction matters because a persistent misconception claims that section 91(2) is not the presidential term-limit provision but merely a qualification rule for election as President, asserts that section 95(2) is the actual term-limit clause. Many who advance this incorrect view rely on one sentence in the obiter dictum by Patel JCC at paragraph 50 of the precedent-setting judgment in Marx Mupungu v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & 6 Ors (CCZ 7/21, 2021) [see: which includes section 95(2) among examples of term-limit provisions. That misconception overlooks a fundamental constitutional imperative: a presidential term-limit provision is, by definition, a disqualifier for election as President. Term limits on presidents are necessarily about elections. They limit qualification for election. Where there is no presidential term limit, re-election is unlimited. In a recent discussion with D. Tinashé Hofisi on 23 April 2026 [ on the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) Bill hosted by The Southern African Times, I explained the relationship between the two sections. Below is the verbatim text of the attached clip extracted from the discussion addressing the import of section 91(2) and its relationship with section 95(2): ME: “It’s a clear term limit provision; is similar to term limit provisions in other jurisdictions that are comparable to Zimbabwe. And when you say it doesn’t have time, it doesn’t make reference to time, I’m at a loss as to what that means, and where that is coming from, with respect to Dr Hofisi, because it says a person is disqualified for election as President or appointment as Vice President if he or she has already held office as President under this constitution for two terms. This is the only section which tells us how many terms a President is limited to. Section 95 doesn’t even tell us that he’s limited to one term. There’s no limit. This one limits the President to two terms. And the two terms, the last time I checked, was a reference to time. And in this case, the section doesn’t leave us doubting or not knowing what a term is or what sort of time a term is. Because it continues to say these two terms are counted whether they follow each other or not. But most significantly, for the purpose of the limit on the President, the term limit on the President, which is provided in this section: three or more years. That’s time. You said there’s no time here. Three years is time. The length of time is three years minimum, and the maximum is more. It’s not defined here. It’s three or more years. It’s more because that is subject to what the relevant law about electoral cycles says is the electoral cycle of the institution that the President occupies”. [verbatim text of clip from The 500 km Highway Metaphor: Distinguishing Sections 91(2) and 95(2) of the Constitution To clearly understand the relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2), imagine the Presidency as a magnificent 500-kilometre highway built and maintained by section 95(2) of the Constitution. This provision creates the presidential highway itself: it defines the office of the President as a permanent public institution and sets the exact length of each single term — currently five years, now proposed under the Bill to be seven years. It establishes a structured, recurring electoral cycle that belongs to the people of Zimbabwe, ensuring regular, orderly renewal of leadership. Without section 95(2), there would be no defined road — only an open plain of indefinite power. Section 91(2) governs the individual truck driver on that highway. It imposes an absolute lifetime limit: no person may complete more than two full trips along this 500 km highway, whether those trips are taken back-to-back or years apart. Any segment of 300 kilometres or more — that is, three or more years in office — counts as one complete trip. There are no partial credits or exceptions. After two full trips, the driver is permanently disqualified from driving on that highway, again. The distinction is sharp and deliberate: Section 95(2) builds the highway and determines the length of each journey. Section 91(2) limits how many times any single individual is permitted to travel it. One structures the office; the other limits the person who occupies it. Together, they form the Constitution’s twin safeguards — working in perfect harmony to keep power temporary, accountable, and subordinate to the will of the people. To conflate their distinct roles is to weaken these vital safeguards and to invite the very tyranny the Constitution was written to prevent. The Profound and Protective Meaning of “Three or More Years” in Section 91(2) of the Constitution At the heart of section 91(2) lies one of the Constitution’s most brilliant safeguards: “for the purpose of this subsection, three or more years’ service is deemed to be a full term.” The word “more” is no mere drafting flourish—it is deliberate constitutional genius. It declares that section 91(2), as the personal lifetime term-limit provision, imposes no rigid numerical ceiling. Subject to what is reasonable and justifiable in a constitutional democracy under section 95(2), service of four years, five years, six years, seven years, or even longer—once it exceeds the three-year threshold—is unequivocally deemed a complete term for the purpose of lifetime disqualification. This flexibility is not a loophole; it is a wise design that refuses to let the term-limit clause under section 91(2) become brittle or easily evaded. This open-ended “more” is anchored in section 91(2)’s harmonious relationship with section 95(2)(b), which defines the official electoral cycle of the Presidency as a permanent public institution whose five-year lifespan is inextricably intertwined with that of Parliament. Section 91(2) places an iron-clad personal disqualification on the individual; section 95(2) defines the dimensions of the highway itself. Crucially, section 95(2) is not a term-limit provision under subsections (1) and (7) of section 328. Unlike the referendum-protected personal term limit in section 91(2), it may be amended by Parliament under section 328(5) without a national referendum. This distinction is no accident; it is constitutional wisdom. It allows the institutional framework of the Presidency to evolve with the nation’s needs while the unbreakable personal lifetime bar on any single individual remains forever sacrosanct. All told, sections 91(2) and 95(2) differ in character and purpose—one limits the President, the other structures the public office or institution of the Presidency—yet they stand together as the Constitution’s twin guardians. This elegant complementarity keeps presidential power temporary, accountable, and forever subordinate to the sovereign will of the people through the institution or office of the Presidency. To respect and defend this relationship is to honour the very soul of the Constitution: ensuring that no individual can ever turn the highway into their driveway—turning the public office into a personal fiefdom—and that the highway of governance remains open, regularly renewed, and eternally in faithful service to the people of Zimbabwe. This is the promise the Constitution makes!
2:09

QUESTION: What is the relationship between section 91(2)—the term limit provision—and section 95(2)—the term length provision in the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013)? ANSWER: Section 91(2) is the term-limit provision. It regulates the President’s tenure by limiting the length of time that he or she may hold or occupy the Presidency as a public officer to a maximum of two terms—whether consecutive or not—where three or more years’ service is deemed a full term. By contrast, section 95(2) is the term-length provision. It regulates the electoral cycle of the Presidency as an office or institution by defining a single term as five years (now proposed to be seven years under Clause 4 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) H.B. 1 Bill, 2026). The relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2) is therefore as clear and straightforward as that between a truck driver and a 500 km highway: section 91(2) limits the driver, while section 95(2) defines the length of the highway. Section 91(2) caps the time any individual may occupy the Presidency; section 95(2) sets the institutional length or duration of each presidential term or electoral cycle. This distinction matters because a persistent misconception claims that section 91(2) is not the presidential term-limit provision but merely a qualification rule for election as President, asserts that section 95(2) is the actual term-limit clause. Many who advance this incorrect view rely on one sentence in the obiter dictum by Patel JCC at paragraph 50 of the precedent-setting judgment in Marx Mupungu v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & 6 Ors (CCZ 7/21, 2021) [see: which includes section 95(2) among examples of term-limit provisions. That misconception overlooks a fundamental constitutional imperative: a presidential term-limit provision is, by definition, a disqualifier for election as President. Term limits on presidents are necessarily about elections. They limit qualification for election. Where there is no presidential term limit, re-election is unlimited. In a recent discussion with D. Tinashé Hofisi on 23 April 2026 [ on the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) Bill hosted by The Southern African Times, I explained the relationship between the two sections. Below is the verbatim text of the attached clip extracted from the discussion addressing the import of section 91(2) and its relationship with section 95(2): ME: “It’s a clear term limit provision; is similar to term limit provisions in other jurisdictions that are comparable to Zimbabwe. And when you say it doesn’t have time, it doesn’t make reference to time, I’m at a loss as to what that means, and where that is coming from, with respect to Dr Hofisi, because it says a person is disqualified for election as President or appointment as Vice President if he or she has already held office as President under this constitution for two terms. This is the only section which tells us how many terms a President is limited to. Section 95 doesn’t even tell us that he’s limited to one term. There’s no limit. This one limits the President to two terms. And the two terms, the last time I checked, was a reference to time. And in this case, the section doesn’t leave us doubting or not knowing what a term is or what sort of time a term is. Because it continues to say these two terms are counted whether they follow each other or not. But most significantly, for the purpose of the limit on the President, the term limit on the President, which is provided in this section: three or more years. That’s time. You said there’s no time here. Three years is time. The length of time is three years minimum, and the maximum is more. It’s not defined here. It’s three or more years. It’s more because that is subject to what the relevant law about electoral cycles says is the electoral cycle of the institution that the President occupies”. [verbatim text of clip from The 500 km Highway Metaphor: Distinguishing Sections 91(2) and 95(2) of the Constitution To clearly understand the relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2), imagine the Presidency as a magnificent 500-kilometre highway built and maintained by section 95(2) of the Constitution. This provision creates the presidential highway itself: it defines the office of the President as a permanent public institution and sets the exact length of each single term — currently five years, now proposed under the Bill to be seven years. It establishes a structured, recurring electoral cycle that belongs to the people of Zimbabwe, ensuring regular, orderly renewal of leadership. Without section 95(2), there would be no defined road — only an open plain of indefinite power. Section 91(2) governs the individual truck driver on that highway. It imposes an absolute lifetime limit: no person may complete more than two full trips along this 500 km highway, whether those trips are taken back-to-back or years apart. Any segment of 300 kilometres or more — that is, three or more years in office — counts as one complete trip. There are no partial credits or exceptions. After two full trips, the driver is permanently disqualified from driving on that highway, again. The distinction is sharp and deliberate: Section 95(2) builds the highway and determines the length of each journey. Section 91(2) limits how many times any single individual is permitted to travel it. One structures the office; the other limits the person who occupies it. Together, they form the Constitution’s twin safeguards — working in perfect harmony to keep power temporary, accountable, and subordinate to the will of the people. To conflate their distinct roles is to weaken these vital safeguards and to invite the very tyranny the Constitution was written to prevent. The Profound and Protective Meaning of “Three or More Years” in Section 91(2) of the Constitution At the heart of section 91(2) lies one of the Constitution’s most brilliant safeguards: “for the purpose of this subsection, three or more years’ service is deemed to be a full term.” The word “more” is no mere drafting flourish—it is deliberate constitutional genius. It declares that section 91(2), as the personal lifetime term-limit provision, imposes no rigid numerical ceiling. Subject to what is reasonable and justifiable in a constitutional democracy under section 95(2), service of four years, five years, six years, seven years, or even longer—once it exceeds the three-year threshold—is unequivocally deemed a complete term for the purpose of lifetime disqualification. This flexibility is not a loophole; it is a wise design that refuses to let the term-limit clause under section 91(2) become brittle or easily evaded. This open-ended “more” is anchored in section 91(2)’s harmonious relationship with section 95(2)(b), which defines the official electoral cycle of the Presidency as a permanent public institution whose five-year lifespan is inextricably intertwined with that of Parliament. Section 91(2) places an iron-clad personal disqualification on the individual; section 95(2) defines the dimensions of the highway itself. Crucially, section 95(2) is not a term-limit provision under subsections (1) and (7) of section 328. Unlike the referendum-protected personal term limit in section 91(2), it may be amended by Parliament under section 328(5) without a national referendum. This distinction is no accident; it is constitutional wisdom. It allows the institutional framework of the Presidency to evolve with the nation’s needs while the unbreakable personal lifetime bar on any single individual remains forever sacrosanct. All told, sections 91(2) and 95(2) differ in character and purpose—one limits the President, the other structures the public office or institution of the Presidency—yet they stand together as the Constitution’s twin guardians. This elegant complementarity keeps presidential power temporary, accountable, and forever subordinate to the sovereign will of the people through the institution or office of the Presidency. To respect and defend this relationship is to honour the very soul of the Constitution: ensuring that no individual can ever turn the highway into their driveway—turning the public office into a personal fiefdom—and that the highway of governance remains open, regularly renewed, and eternally in faithful service to the people of Zimbabwe. This is the promise the Constitution makes!

Prof Jonathan Moyo

12,834 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

📹 Our Board Members Hugh Grant and MsJones tackle one of the most pressing issues of our time: unchecked power in the hands of the press and its profound impact on democracy. They shed light on two powerful pathways toward genuine press accountability. This was at the brilliant Yellow Press Evening with Hugh Grant filmed by Yellow Lens Productions. 1️⃣ Strengthened Regulation: Hugh emphasises the need for a truly independent press regulator—an authority as essential as those that oversee any other powerful industry in the UK. “The newspapers have shown, time and again, that self-regulation simply doesn’t work,” he explains, as he calls for a system that goes beyond “marking their own homework” and brings justice to innocent victims of press abuse. 2️⃣ Responsible Ownership: They both question the fairness of Britain’s press being dominated by wealthy foreign owners, driven more by profit and political influence than journalistic integrity. “Shouldn’t British papers be owned by British people?” Hugh asks, highlighting the concerns with global media giants holding significant sway over national narratives. It’s time to rethink how we protect both freedom and responsibility in the media industry. Our democracy deserves it. 🇬🇧📜 #PressReform #HackedOff
2:20

📹 Our Board Members Hugh Grant and MsJones tackle one of the most pressing issues of our time: unchecked power in the hands of the press and its profound impact on democracy. They shed light on two powerful pathways toward genuine press accountability. This was at the brilliant Yellow Press Evening with Hugh Grant filmed by Yellow Lens Productions. 1️⃣ Strengthened Regulation: Hugh emphasises the need for a truly independent press regulator—an authority as essential as those that oversee any other powerful industry in the UK. “The newspapers have shown, time and again, that self-regulation simply doesn’t work,” he explains, as he calls for a system that goes beyond “marking their own homework” and brings justice to innocent victims of press abuse. 2️⃣ Responsible Ownership: They both question the fairness of Britain’s press being dominated by wealthy foreign owners, driven more by profit and political influence than journalistic integrity. “Shouldn’t British papers be owned by British people?” Hugh asks, highlighting the concerns with global media giants holding significant sway over national narratives. It’s time to rethink how we protect both freedom and responsibility in the media industry. Our democracy deserves it. 🇬🇧📜 #PressReform #HackedOff

Hacked Off

46,099 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

US Ambassador Mike Waltz at the UNSC meeting: “The regime’s dereliction of duty to its own citizens is what has put the Ayatollahs in positions they are in today, with hundreds of thousands if not millions protesting on the streets after decades of neglect and abuse. So everyone should ask themselves—everyone sitting here today—how many people are dead, how many people are wounded, maimed and abused in the Middle East? In Israel, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, even Venezuela because of the regime’s support for terrorism is to largest state sponsor. And I would like to address that allegation put forward by the Regime that these inspired protests are somehow a foreign plot to give a precursor to military action. Everyone in the world needs to know that the regime is weaker than ever before and therefore, it’s putting forward this lie because of the power of Iranian people on the streets. They are afraid. They’re afraid of their own people. Iran says it’s ready for dialogue but its actions say otherwise. This is a regime that rules through oppression, through violence and intimidation in, and has destabilized the Middle East for decades. Well enough is enough. We all have a responsibility to support the Iranian people and to put an end to the regime’s neglect and oppression of the Iranian nation colleagues. Let me be clear: President Trump is a man of action not endless talk like we see at United Nations. He has made it clear all options are on the table to stop the slaughter and no one should know that better than leadership of Iranian regime. Thank you Mr. President”
2:14

US Ambassador Mike Waltz at the UNSC meeting: “The regime’s dereliction of duty to its own citizens is what has put the Ayatollahs in positions they are in today, with hundreds of thousands if not millions protesting on the streets after decades of neglect and abuse. So everyone should ask themselves—everyone sitting here today—how many people are dead, how many people are wounded, maimed and abused in the Middle East? In Israel, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, even Venezuela because of the regime’s support for terrorism is to largest state sponsor. And I would like to address that allegation put forward by the Regime that these inspired protests are somehow a foreign plot to give a precursor to military action. Everyone in the world needs to know that the regime is weaker than ever before and therefore, it’s putting forward this lie because of the power of Iranian people on the streets. They are afraid. They’re afraid of their own people. Iran says it’s ready for dialogue but its actions say otherwise. This is a regime that rules through oppression, through violence and intimidation in, and has destabilized the Middle East for decades. Well enough is enough. We all have a responsibility to support the Iranian people and to put an end to the regime’s neglect and oppression of the Iranian nation colleagues. Let me be clear: President Trump is a man of action not endless talk like we see at United Nations. He has made it clear all options are on the table to stop the slaughter and no one should know that better than leadership of Iranian regime. Thank you Mr. President”

Open Source Intel

66,729 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

“They’re trying to make it ILLEGAL for the government to protect you from a trillion-dollar Pharma company poisoning you!” Jimmy Dore just EXPOSED a plan to give pesticide companies legal immunity for causing cancer. “Not only are they corrupt murderers, but now they want to get the government to give them a shield for murdering people.” “A provision tucked deep in a spending bill to fund the EPA and the Interior Department would effectively END lawsuits from plaintiffs claiming Bayer’s pesticide roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate gave them cancer.” “To date, Bayer has paid roughly $11 billion in settlements to about 100,000 people … over the cancer that they were given by Roundup and glyphosate.” “But keep being angry at RFK, and not Big Pharma!” “63,000 lawsuits are currently pending against Bayer.” “Most of these cases … alleged Bayer’s Roundup label failed to warn about potential cancer risks, referencing a 2015 International Agency for Research study that found glyphosate was probably carcinogenic to humans.” “The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act prohibits the sale of any pesticide that is misbranded.” “Plaintiffs often successfully argue that lack of cancer warning on the label amounts to FIFRA-defined misbranding.” “Section 453 of HR Bill 4754, the Department of the Interior Environment and Regulated Agencies Appropriation Act lays out Bayer’s get out of jail free card.” “Here it is: none of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action, or approve any labeling or change to such labeling that is inconsistent with or in any respect different from (a) the conclusions of a human health assessment for form pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, and (b), a carcinogenicity classification for a pesticide.” Jimmy Dore Kurt Metzger
3:33

“They’re trying to make it ILLEGAL for the government to protect you from a trillion-dollar Pharma company poisoning you!” Jimmy Dore just EXPOSED a plan to give pesticide companies legal immunity for causing cancer. “Not only are they corrupt murderers, but now they want to get the government to give them a shield for murdering people.” “A provision tucked deep in a spending bill to fund the EPA and the Interior Department would effectively END lawsuits from plaintiffs claiming Bayer’s pesticide roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate gave them cancer.” “To date, Bayer has paid roughly $11 billion in settlements to about 100,000 people … over the cancer that they were given by Roundup and glyphosate.” “But keep being angry at RFK, and not Big Pharma!” “63,000 lawsuits are currently pending against Bayer.” “Most of these cases … alleged Bayer’s Roundup label failed to warn about potential cancer risks, referencing a 2015 International Agency for Research study that found glyphosate was probably carcinogenic to humans.” “The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act prohibits the sale of any pesticide that is misbranded.” “Plaintiffs often successfully argue that lack of cancer warning on the label amounts to FIFRA-defined misbranding.” “Section 453 of HR Bill 4754, the Department of the Interior Environment and Regulated Agencies Appropriation Act lays out Bayer’s get out of jail free card.” “Here it is: none of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action, or approve any labeling or change to such labeling that is inconsistent with or in any respect different from (a) the conclusions of a human health assessment for form pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, and (b), a carcinogenicity classification for a pesticide.” Jimmy Dore Kurt Metzger

Holden Culotta

48,188 görüntüleme • 9 ay önce

🚨 MUST WATCH: Senator Rand Paul and I talk about Google, defamation, AI lies + more. Fabricated crimes, victims, evidence and more. Rand Paul doesn’t mince words: "I think you’re going to kill them in court" "They’ve convinced me they have no decency and no moral compass" "A week before an election, a fake video could destroy someone" If Big Tech can do what we discuss here, this isn’t just a Robby or Rand problem, it’s a problem for everyone because you could be next. Overview: For 2+ years, Google's AI has accused me of sexual assault, child rape, robberies, shootings, selling drugs, abuse and much more — crimes that I’ve never been accused of, charged with, or convicted of in my life. It told people detailed lies when they asked for my bio. It fabricated fake court records, fake police reports, fake victim statements, fake articles from major media outlets, even fake 404-linked "sources" from major media outlets that it would then hallucinate entire stories for if challenged about the page going to a 404 link. I notified Google repeatedly, directly and through lawyers to their legal team, and they didn’t stop it. The lies continued, reached over two million people according to their own AI, and the damage has been massive, including people in real life confronting me thinking these lies were true. Senator Rand Paul went through something eerily similar. A video on YouTube accused him of taking stolen money from Nicolás Maduro, essentially treason, which is punishable by death. It looked like a legit news broadcast. He and his office notified Google/YouTube multiple times; and they refused to remove it, saying (according to Sen. Paul) "we don't adjudicate the truth." Yet when Rand said cloth masks didn’t work for COVID (a view now widely accepted), they took his content down. Selective enforcement. And now Rand says he has received death threats. Key timecodes to jump to: 2:15 Rand: "What Google did is criminal" 2:30 The Section 230 Problem 4:00 Why This Case Is Different — "They’re not hosting content, they’re CREATING the content" - Paul explains why AI-generated defamation destroys Section 230 protection and why Starbuck’s case is "incredibly strong" 6:00 Paul: "I’ve been against changing 230, but now I think maybe…" 9:20 The nightmare scenario: deepfakes dropped right before a tight election. 10:00 Rand Paul: "I think you are going to kill them in court because…" 13:05 Rand reveals threats he’s received.. 13:22 Fat people are protected while we aren’t protected from blatant lies. 14:00 Robby reveals: Insurance companies DENIED him coverage recently. 17:17 Rand wrestles with the implications: How do we prevent fake AI videos from destroying elections? What happens when you can’t tell what’s real anymore? "This is Pandora’s box" 18:00 Rand defends memes! 18:40 Paul describes Google’s insulting response. 19:00 Call for Senate Hearings — Paul commits to investigating: "I happen to know somebody who’s a chairman of a committee and I think he might be persuaded to look at your case" 24:23 Rand can’t believe Google would risk a jury seeing this. 25:50 "There’s seemingly no going back" 27:51 Rand: "They took down my Senate floor speech which is protected by the Constitution… That’s how arrogant these people are" 29:00 Starbuck reminds Paul of their Big Tech disagreement years ago. Paul admits: "That’s part of learning… My opinion has shifted…" Watch & share. Feel free to clip and use whatever you want for your own social pages. I give you permission!
32:47

🚨 MUST WATCH: Senator Rand Paul and I talk about Google, defamation, AI lies + more. Fabricated crimes, victims, evidence and more. Rand Paul doesn’t mince words: "I think you’re going to kill them in court" "They’ve convinced me they have no decency and no moral compass" "A week before an election, a fake video could destroy someone" If Big Tech can do what we discuss here, this isn’t just a Robby or Rand problem, it’s a problem for everyone because you could be next. Overview: For 2+ years, Google's AI has accused me of sexual assault, child rape, robberies, shootings, selling drugs, abuse and much more — crimes that I’ve never been accused of, charged with, or convicted of in my life. It told people detailed lies when they asked for my bio. It fabricated fake court records, fake police reports, fake victim statements, fake articles from major media outlets, even fake 404-linked "sources" from major media outlets that it would then hallucinate entire stories for if challenged about the page going to a 404 link. I notified Google repeatedly, directly and through lawyers to their legal team, and they didn’t stop it. The lies continued, reached over two million people according to their own AI, and the damage has been massive, including people in real life confronting me thinking these lies were true. Senator Rand Paul went through something eerily similar. A video on YouTube accused him of taking stolen money from Nicolás Maduro, essentially treason, which is punishable by death. It looked like a legit news broadcast. He and his office notified Google/YouTube multiple times; and they refused to remove it, saying (according to Sen. Paul) "we don't adjudicate the truth." Yet when Rand said cloth masks didn’t work for COVID (a view now widely accepted), they took his content down. Selective enforcement. And now Rand says he has received death threats. Key timecodes to jump to: 2:15 Rand: "What Google did is criminal" 2:30 The Section 230 Problem 4:00 Why This Case Is Different — "They’re not hosting content, they’re CREATING the content" - Paul explains why AI-generated defamation destroys Section 230 protection and why Starbuck’s case is "incredibly strong" 6:00 Paul: "I’ve been against changing 230, but now I think maybe…" 9:20 The nightmare scenario: deepfakes dropped right before a tight election. 10:00 Rand Paul: "I think you are going to kill them in court because…" 13:05 Rand reveals threats he’s received.. 13:22 Fat people are protected while we aren’t protected from blatant lies. 14:00 Robby reveals: Insurance companies DENIED him coverage recently. 17:17 Rand wrestles with the implications: How do we prevent fake AI videos from destroying elections? What happens when you can’t tell what’s real anymore? "This is Pandora’s box" 18:00 Rand defends memes! 18:40 Paul describes Google’s insulting response. 19:00 Call for Senate Hearings — Paul commits to investigating: "I happen to know somebody who’s a chairman of a committee and I think he might be persuaded to look at your case" 24:23 Rand can’t believe Google would risk a jury seeing this. 25:50 "There’s seemingly no going back" 27:51 Rand: "They took down my Senate floor speech which is protected by the Constitution… That’s how arrogant these people are" 29:00 Starbuck reminds Paul of their Big Tech disagreement years ago. Paul admits: "That’s part of learning… My opinion has shifted…" Watch & share. Feel free to clip and use whatever you want for your own social pages. I give you permission!

Robby Starbuck

105,539 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

My take on Tania Fernandes Anderson: Let me be clear - Do I think she should resign and have to face the consequences of her actions? Absolutely. But let’s look at the WHOLE situation: She was fined $5,000 for nepotism, and stole federal money to pay the fine. I would be okay with that except that the government, both local and federal, is overrun with nepotism - unchecked, and essentially ALLOWED…so why did SHE take the fall? There are many more people in government who are getting away with much worse crimes against humanity who remain unchecked and unaccountable. So while I do appreciate that somebody in government is being held accountable, I will not ignore nor be silent about the fact that it’s the low man on the totem pole and it’s not fair. They’re all stealing money from us. They’re all lying to us. She stole money from the government to pay a government fine. Meanwhile, criminals like Michelle Wu, Maura Healey, Charlie Baker get praised & celebrated for jobs well done when they break laws. Make it make sense. I’m not impressed when they throw low hanging fruit under the bus. Hillary Clinton still walks free and we’re supposed to be overjoyed that TFA is potentially going to prison over $7k?! Fuck off. (This clip is from August 2022 but it’s a classic)
0:23

My take on Tania Fernandes Anderson: Let me be clear - Do I think she should resign and have to face the consequences of her actions? Absolutely. But let’s look at the WHOLE situation: She was fined $5,000 for nepotism, and stole federal money to pay the fine. I would be okay with that except that the government, both local and federal, is overrun with nepotism - unchecked, and essentially ALLOWED…so why did SHE take the fall? There are many more people in government who are getting away with much worse crimes against humanity who remain unchecked and unaccountable. So while I do appreciate that somebody in government is being held accountable, I will not ignore nor be silent about the fact that it’s the low man on the totem pole and it’s not fair. They’re all stealing money from us. They’re all lying to us. She stole money from the government to pay a government fine. Meanwhile, criminals like Michelle Wu, Maura Healey, Charlie Baker get praised & celebrated for jobs well done when they break laws. Make it make sense. I’m not impressed when they throw low hanging fruit under the bus. Hillary Clinton still walks free and we’re supposed to be overjoyed that TFA is potentially going to prison over $7k?! Fuck off. (This clip is from August 2022 but it’s a classic)

Catherine Vitale

19,611 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

🚨🚨 BREAKING NEWS: Animal rights campaigner, Anneka Svenska, was visited at home by two police officers and told to accept a police record, attend an “online thinking” course, or face arrest following comments she made on social media about the incineration of beagles at a company that breeds the dogs for use in medical research. The police alleged that she had committed a crime under the Online Safety Act. Anneka refused to accept this “community resolution disposal”, which would have remained on her police record, and, after she engaged a lawyer, the case has now been dropped. Section 179 of the Online Safety Act was introduced by the last Conservative Government and made it a crime, punishable by up to 51 weeks in prison, to knowingly spread false information likely to cause harm. While the Bill was going through Parliament, the FSU warned it might be weaponised in this way to silence legitimate political speech. Anneka doesn’t believe the information she spread about the company was false. In fact, she has documentary evidence which she says substantiates her claims. Until the Online Safety Act was passed, the company unhappy about comments like this would have had to bring a defamation claim in the civil courts. Now, it seems, hurty words online can quickly become a police matter – and it seems that companies are now making criminal complaints as part of their brand protection strategies. If you are visited by the police for a speech matter, we’d urge you to take specialist legal advice before accepting any form of caution or submitting to a re-education course. Members of the Free Speech Union can ask for our help if they find themselves in a similar situation.
1:59

🚨🚨 BREAKING NEWS: Animal rights campaigner, Anneka Svenska, was visited at home by two police officers and told to accept a police record, attend an “online thinking” course, or face arrest following comments she made on social media about the incineration of beagles at a company that breeds the dogs for use in medical research. The police alleged that she had committed a crime under the Online Safety Act. Anneka refused to accept this “community resolution disposal”, which would have remained on her police record, and, after she engaged a lawyer, the case has now been dropped. Section 179 of the Online Safety Act was introduced by the last Conservative Government and made it a crime, punishable by up to 51 weeks in prison, to knowingly spread false information likely to cause harm. While the Bill was going through Parliament, the FSU warned it might be weaponised in this way to silence legitimate political speech. Anneka doesn’t believe the information she spread about the company was false. In fact, she has documentary evidence which she says substantiates her claims. Until the Online Safety Act was passed, the company unhappy about comments like this would have had to bring a defamation claim in the civil courts. Now, it seems, hurty words online can quickly become a police matter – and it seems that companies are now making criminal complaints as part of their brand protection strategies. If you are visited by the police for a speech matter, we’d urge you to take specialist legal advice before accepting any form of caution or submitting to a re-education course. Members of the Free Speech Union can ask for our help if they find themselves in a similar situation.

The Free Speech Union

787,324 görüntüleme • 12 gün önce

Gavin Newsom has a large stack of bills ready to be signed right before he leaves office. They are all extremely destructive “Here's what you need to prepare yourself for” - SB 177 would get around the First Amendment's editorial discretion and Section 230 to slap million dollar pop fines on platforms for content the state would determine to be inciting. This bill ends Free Speech - AB 495 completely unnecessary bill that helps no one but puts all children in danger by allowing just about anybody to fill out a caregiver authorization affidavit and come snatch a kid from school - SB 59 seals sex marker changes for minors and adults, fining anyone revealing those records, even a parent who's against it - AB 727 requires Trevor Project number on every student's ID and allows unmonitored access to chat rooms with adult themes - AB 1487 that would expand the transgender variant and intersex wellness reentry fund to the tune of $14 million, basically throwing more money at programs supporting transgender, gender variant and intersex people who've been in prison - SB 497 protecting those who help kids cut off reproductive body parts or sterilize them. It blocks out of state subpoenas and tracking of the number of females being placed on testosterone - AB 82 further expands address confidentiality to gender affirming doctors. Publishing info about them will land you in court, which violates the freedom of press and speech. It would even protect doctors violate their home state laws - 1084 will expedite birth record, sex marker, change petitions to 6 weeks. Disallow objections to those petitions. Parents won't be allowed to object to their own child's petition if the only reason is that change - SB 418 will disallow insurance carriers from refusing to provide sex rejecting interventions. They'll be forced to protect gender identity, whatever it might be, and furry surgeries will be covered
2:43

Gavin Newsom has a large stack of bills ready to be signed right before he leaves office. They are all extremely destructive “Here's what you need to prepare yourself for” - SB 177 would get around the First Amendment's editorial discretion and Section 230 to slap million dollar pop fines on platforms for content the state would determine to be inciting. This bill ends Free Speech - AB 495 completely unnecessary bill that helps no one but puts all children in danger by allowing just about anybody to fill out a caregiver authorization affidavit and come snatch a kid from school - SB 59 seals sex marker changes for minors and adults, fining anyone revealing those records, even a parent who's against it - AB 727 requires Trevor Project number on every student's ID and allows unmonitored access to chat rooms with adult themes - AB 1487 that would expand the transgender variant and intersex wellness reentry fund to the tune of $14 million, basically throwing more money at programs supporting transgender, gender variant and intersex people who've been in prison - SB 497 protecting those who help kids cut off reproductive body parts or sterilize them. It blocks out of state subpoenas and tracking of the number of females being placed on testosterone - AB 82 further expands address confidentiality to gender affirming doctors. Publishing info about them will land you in court, which violates the freedom of press and speech. It would even protect doctors violate their home state laws - 1084 will expedite birth record, sex marker, change petitions to 6 weeks. Disallow objections to those petitions. Parents won't be allowed to object to their own child's petition if the only reason is that change - SB 418 will disallow insurance carriers from refusing to provide sex rejecting interventions. They'll be forced to protect gender identity, whatever it might be, and furry surgeries will be covered

Wall Street Apes

202,675 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Adv. Khumalo has cooked this questionable prosecutor adv Serunye straight to the wording of PRECCA, repeatedly telling him, "Look at the last part of section 21." He kept pressing the point that section 21 doesn't stand on its own , it takes you back to the actual offence in the Act. If the charge says there was a conspiracy to give gratification, then what was the offence they conspired to commit? That crucial element was missing from count one wh.ich is the main charge Then the Chair stepped in and reminded him that this wasn't a new issue. Right at the beginning, when he first raised his own queries, he himself asked, "to do what...?" showing he knew the charge needed that missing element. The Chair asked how he could have forgotten that when drafting the charge sheet. Eventually, he conceded that point. To top it off Adv. Sisi Baloyi say 'I have a generous explanation, that painted a clear picture of his role on how he amended charge sheet. It is, ''that he came in in this and found a mess, and he tried to fix, he tried to help fix it. And because he knew that they are going for ratification because that's the more serious charge that would get people in court, suspended, and they he was trying to fix an unfixable. thats it. and went on and said ''i take that, Commissioner''. I'll take that . While he rejected any suggestion of improper motives, insisting he acted with a clean conscience, the exchanges left him conceding several flaws in how count one was drafted. That was one of the most intense legal exchanges of the hearing so far. ubanjiwe lomfo.😳🙆‍♂️🤦‍♂️
7:48

Adv. Khumalo has cooked this questionable prosecutor adv Serunye straight to the wording of PRECCA, repeatedly telling him, "Look at the last part of section 21." He kept pressing the point that section 21 doesn't stand on its own , it takes you back to the actual offence in the Act. If the charge says there was a conspiracy to give gratification, then what was the offence they conspired to commit? That crucial element was missing from count one wh.ich is the main charge Then the Chair stepped in and reminded him that this wasn't a new issue. Right at the beginning, when he first raised his own queries, he himself asked, "to do what...?" showing he knew the charge needed that missing element. The Chair asked how he could have forgotten that when drafting the charge sheet. Eventually, he conceded that point. To top it off Adv. Sisi Baloyi say 'I have a generous explanation, that painted a clear picture of his role on how he amended charge sheet. It is, ''that he came in in this and found a mess, and he tried to fix, he tried to help fix it. And because he knew that they are going for ratification because that's the more serious charge that would get people in court, suspended, and they he was trying to fix an unfixable. thats it. and went on and said ''i take that, Commissioner''. I'll take that . While he rejected any suggestion of improper motives, insisting he acted with a clean conscience, the exchanges left him conceding several flaws in how count one was drafted. That was one of the most intense legal exchanges of the hearing so far. ubanjiwe lomfo.😳🙆‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Siphiwe❤️😎🇿🇦

37,595 görüntüleme • 7 gün önce

No religious organisation, political party, or powerful institution—regardless of its influence or following— has the right to dictate how the Republic administers justice. The rule of law belongs to the Filipino people, not to any organisation that believes its political weight entitles it to special treatment. By publicly rallying behind Senator Rodante Marcoleta while the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice move towards filing plunder and indirect bribery charges, the Iglesia ni Cristo has chosen institutional loyalty over accountability. Instead of affirming that the law should take its course, it has created the unmistakable impression that one of its own should be shielded from the full force of the justice system. This is not an isolated matter. Senator Marcoleta has repeatedly attracted controversy—from his conduct during the Senate’s flood control inquiry, where he was accused of diverting scrutiny from key personalities and relying on discredited testimony, to serious questions surrounding undeclared campaign funds and other matters now under official investigation and an impending indictment for plunder and bribery. These allegations deserve to be tested in court, free from political or religious pressure. That is why the INC’s intervention is so troubling. A religious institution that deploys its influence to defend a politician facing grave criminal allegations, rather than insisting that justice be allowed to run its course, abandons the moral ground from which it claims to speak. It ceases to be merely a religious body and becomes a political actor seeking to influence the administration of justice. Where was this moral outrage when thousands of Filipinos died during the previous administration’s bloody drug war? Where was the INC when the Vice President was accused, replete with evidences, of corruption in office and threatened the life of a sitting President and his family? Where was this uncompromising defence of righteousness when corruption, abuse of power, and the erosion of democratic institutions demanded moral courage? Silence then, followed by political mobilisation now, is not righteousness. It is selective morality. If the INC truly believes in justice, it should welcome an independent investigation, not to resist it. Senator Marcoleta deserves due process—not immunity. He deserves a fair trial— not institutional protection. No one is above the law. Not a senator. Not a religious organisation. Not anyone who believes influence is a substitute for accountability. The rule of law must prevail over political pressure, religious influence, and institutional loyalty—every single time. Should the INC be allowed to dictate upon the government under threat of weaponising its people if their capricious objectives are not met? The INC was gifted with free expression and was put under no obligations to pay taxes for the exercise of its purpose. But the same INC is now threatening to rupture the nation into another decade of chaos and destruction. Let the INC and its leaders be warned— you have the right to choose what you want to do, but you have no right to choose the consequences of those actions.
3:14

No religious organisation, political party, or powerful institution—regardless of its influence or following— has the right to dictate how the Republic administers justice. The rule of law belongs to the Filipino people, not to any organisation that believes its political weight entitles it to special treatment. By publicly rallying behind Senator Rodante Marcoleta while the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice move towards filing plunder and indirect bribery charges, the Iglesia ni Cristo has chosen institutional loyalty over accountability. Instead of affirming that the law should take its course, it has created the unmistakable impression that one of its own should be shielded from the full force of the justice system. This is not an isolated matter. Senator Marcoleta has repeatedly attracted controversy—from his conduct during the Senate’s flood control inquiry, where he was accused of diverting scrutiny from key personalities and relying on discredited testimony, to serious questions surrounding undeclared campaign funds and other matters now under official investigation and an impending indictment for plunder and bribery. These allegations deserve to be tested in court, free from political or religious pressure. That is why the INC’s intervention is so troubling. A religious institution that deploys its influence to defend a politician facing grave criminal allegations, rather than insisting that justice be allowed to run its course, abandons the moral ground from which it claims to speak. It ceases to be merely a religious body and becomes a political actor seeking to influence the administration of justice. Where was this moral outrage when thousands of Filipinos died during the previous administration’s bloody drug war? Where was the INC when the Vice President was accused, replete with evidences, of corruption in office and threatened the life of a sitting President and his family? Where was this uncompromising defence of righteousness when corruption, abuse of power, and the erosion of democratic institutions demanded moral courage? Silence then, followed by political mobilisation now, is not righteousness. It is selective morality. If the INC truly believes in justice, it should welcome an independent investigation, not to resist it. Senator Marcoleta deserves due process—not immunity. He deserves a fair trial— not institutional protection. No one is above the law. Not a senator. Not a religious organisation. Not anyone who believes influence is a substitute for accountability. The rule of law must prevail over political pressure, religious influence, and institutional loyalty—every single time. Should the INC be allowed to dictate upon the government under threat of weaponising its people if their capricious objectives are not met? The INC was gifted with free expression and was put under no obligations to pay taxes for the exercise of its purpose. But the same INC is now threatening to rupture the nation into another decade of chaos and destruction. Let the INC and its leaders be warned— you have the right to choose what you want to do, but you have no right to choose the consequences of those actions.

The King

10,699 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

It’s probably worth flagging the fact that the president of the United States is promoting the establishment of a Ministry of Truth to restrict speech in a suggested law called the “Charlie Kirk Act”. President Trump’s Truth Social account posted a viral video from TikTok on Saturday in which a Trump voter named Elly May blamed the assassination of Republican political operative Charlie Kirk on the press, urging the president to push for legislation which would make “news corporations accountable for lying to the American people and spreading propaganda instead of truth.” May frames the idea as a revisitation of the Smith-Mundt Act, but then goes on to describe authoritarian measures which have nothing to do with Smith-Mundt. “President Trump, as a supporter who voted for you 3 times, I am hoping and praying that you will revisit what Barack Obama and Joe Biden got rid of back in 2013, which is the Smith-Mundt Act, which held news corporations accountable for lying to the American people and spreading propaganda instead of truth,” May says. “I think instead of bringing it back as a Smith-Mundt Act, you name it the Charlie Kirk Act, make it a law, and you make it damn near impossible for these people to continue to lie to the American public, which has brought chaos, hatred, division, and anarchy all across this country. Fines out their ass which will damn near bankrupt their companies should they lie to the American people ever again.” “Because of their constant lies, a man lost his life, because of the constant hateful rhetoric of calling him a fascist, and a Nazi, and a white supremacist, and a bigot,” May said. “I think this would be a great legacy for him to have a law named after him to force journalists to finally start telling the truth and having the integrity that they have lacked for over a decade.” “We are on a dangerous path right now with the constant lies and the propaganda,” May says. “And that doesn’t end just at news journalists. It needs to go to content creators who consistently spread lies and propaganda and half-truths across the internet. This needs to end, and people need to start being held accountable for baseless claims over absolute abysmal things.” “Get this in front of Congress, get this passed as a law, and start holding these news corporations — be they right, left or center — accountable for their behavior,” May concludes. May has been promoting a Change dot org petition to “Enact the Charlie Kirk Act to Restore Media Accountability,” which as of this writing has tens of thousands of signatures. “This amended act will hold media outlets, radio stations, educators, and content creators accountable for the false narratives and erroneous information they spread deliberately or irresponsibly,” the petition reads, proposing heavy fines for those deemed to be in violation. A couple of issues with this. Firstly, the Smith-Mundt Act had nothing to do with holding “news corporations accountable for lying to the American people”; it was a Cold War-era law which prohibited official US government propaganda created by institutions like the State Department and the USAGM from being disseminated domestically. This law was controversially revised under the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 in the name of combatting Al Qaeda propaganda campaigns in the United States. Returning Smith-Mundt to its original iteration would be a fine idea. American right wingers tend to make a much bigger deal about the changes made under the Obama administration than is actually warranted — anyone who remembers the lead-up to the Iraq invasion knows the US government had no trouble getting immensely consequential propaganda circulating throughout the American press prior to 2013. But anything that inhibits the US government’s ability to disseminate propaganda to Americans might be somewhat helpful, and couldn’t hurt. But that isn’t what this “Charlie Kirk Act” push is advocating. Smith-Mundt placed restrictions on what the US government is allowed to do with regard to propaganda, while the proposed “Charlie Kirk Act” would give the US government sweeping new powers to decide what does and does not constitute propaganda and untruth and administer penalties accordingly. One limits the US government’s ability to manipulate public information, while the other explicitly expands it. Nobody anywhere is claiming that propaganda generated by the US State Department or USAGM projects like Voice of America got Charlie Kirk assassinated by calling him a Nazi; they’re talking about creating a new law to stomp out the free speech of “media outlets, radio stations, educators, and content creators.” The other issue is of course that giving the government the authority to penalize propaganda and lies means giving the government the authority to determine what constitutes propaganda and lies. They could decide it’s a lie to say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, for example, or that it’s propaganda to say the US shouldn’t be waging a proxy war in Ukraine. The “Charlie Kirk Act” is being pushed in the name of fighting propaganda, but it would actually be giving the US government unprecedented authority over what Americans are permitted to say on any platform. This could of course turn out to be nothing and fizzle right away, but when the president of the United States starts pushing for the establishment of a Ministry of Truth to determine what Americans are allowed to say, I think that’s worth drawing attention to. I’m just amazed at the virality of this whole thing. The American right’s frenzied emotional hysteria about the murder of Charlie Kirk has them promoting an initiative that is not meaningfully different from the Ministry of Truth proposed under the Biden administration’s “Disinformation Governance Board”, which was aborted after massive public outcry from the right. And that was just three years ago. I’ve said it many times before and I’ll surely say it many times again: when everyone’s emotions are running hot, that’s when it’s most important to be intensely skeptical of everything your government does. We learned this lesson after 9/11, we were reminded again after October 7, and we may very well be getting another lesson with the killing of Charlie Kirk. Reading by Tim Foley:
6:37

It’s probably worth flagging the fact that the president of the United States is promoting the establishment of a Ministry of Truth to restrict speech in a suggested law called the “Charlie Kirk Act”. President Trump’s Truth Social account posted a viral video from TikTok on Saturday in which a Trump voter named Elly May blamed the assassination of Republican political operative Charlie Kirk on the press, urging the president to push for legislation which would make “news corporations accountable for lying to the American people and spreading propaganda instead of truth.” May frames the idea as a revisitation of the Smith-Mundt Act, but then goes on to describe authoritarian measures which have nothing to do with Smith-Mundt. “President Trump, as a supporter who voted for you 3 times, I am hoping and praying that you will revisit what Barack Obama and Joe Biden got rid of back in 2013, which is the Smith-Mundt Act, which held news corporations accountable for lying to the American people and spreading propaganda instead of truth,” May says. “I think instead of bringing it back as a Smith-Mundt Act, you name it the Charlie Kirk Act, make it a law, and you make it damn near impossible for these people to continue to lie to the American public, which has brought chaos, hatred, division, and anarchy all across this country. Fines out their ass which will damn near bankrupt their companies should they lie to the American people ever again.” “Because of their constant lies, a man lost his life, because of the constant hateful rhetoric of calling him a fascist, and a Nazi, and a white supremacist, and a bigot,” May said. “I think this would be a great legacy for him to have a law named after him to force journalists to finally start telling the truth and having the integrity that they have lacked for over a decade.” “We are on a dangerous path right now with the constant lies and the propaganda,” May says. “And that doesn’t end just at news journalists. It needs to go to content creators who consistently spread lies and propaganda and half-truths across the internet. This needs to end, and people need to start being held accountable for baseless claims over absolute abysmal things.” “Get this in front of Congress, get this passed as a law, and start holding these news corporations — be they right, left or center — accountable for their behavior,” May concludes. May has been promoting a Change dot org petition to “Enact the Charlie Kirk Act to Restore Media Accountability,” which as of this writing has tens of thousands of signatures. “This amended act will hold media outlets, radio stations, educators, and content creators accountable for the false narratives and erroneous information they spread deliberately or irresponsibly,” the petition reads, proposing heavy fines for those deemed to be in violation. A couple of issues with this. Firstly, the Smith-Mundt Act had nothing to do with holding “news corporations accountable for lying to the American people”; it was a Cold War-era law which prohibited official US government propaganda created by institutions like the State Department and the USAGM from being disseminated domestically. This law was controversially revised under the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 in the name of combatting Al Qaeda propaganda campaigns in the United States. Returning Smith-Mundt to its original iteration would be a fine idea. American right wingers tend to make a much bigger deal about the changes made under the Obama administration than is actually warranted — anyone who remembers the lead-up to the Iraq invasion knows the US government had no trouble getting immensely consequential propaganda circulating throughout the American press prior to 2013. But anything that inhibits the US government’s ability to disseminate propaganda to Americans might be somewhat helpful, and couldn’t hurt. But that isn’t what this “Charlie Kirk Act” push is advocating. Smith-Mundt placed restrictions on what the US government is allowed to do with regard to propaganda, while the proposed “Charlie Kirk Act” would give the US government sweeping new powers to decide what does and does not constitute propaganda and untruth and administer penalties accordingly. One limits the US government’s ability to manipulate public information, while the other explicitly expands it. Nobody anywhere is claiming that propaganda generated by the US State Department or USAGM projects like Voice of America got Charlie Kirk assassinated by calling him a Nazi; they’re talking about creating a new law to stomp out the free speech of “media outlets, radio stations, educators, and content creators.” The other issue is of course that giving the government the authority to penalize propaganda and lies means giving the government the authority to determine what constitutes propaganda and lies. They could decide it’s a lie to say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, for example, or that it’s propaganda to say the US shouldn’t be waging a proxy war in Ukraine. The “Charlie Kirk Act” is being pushed in the name of fighting propaganda, but it would actually be giving the US government unprecedented authority over what Americans are permitted to say on any platform. This could of course turn out to be nothing and fizzle right away, but when the president of the United States starts pushing for the establishment of a Ministry of Truth to determine what Americans are allowed to say, I think that’s worth drawing attention to. I’m just amazed at the virality of this whole thing. The American right’s frenzied emotional hysteria about the murder of Charlie Kirk has them promoting an initiative that is not meaningfully different from the Ministry of Truth proposed under the Biden administration’s “Disinformation Governance Board”, which was aborted after massive public outcry from the right. And that was just three years ago. I’ve said it many times before and I’ll surely say it many times again: when everyone’s emotions are running hot, that’s when it’s most important to be intensely skeptical of everything your government does. We learned this lesson after 9/11, we were reminded again after October 7, and we may very well be getting another lesson with the killing of Charlie Kirk. Reading by Tim Foley:

Caitlin Johnstone

58,264 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

No, this is not another retail mall - it’s a R1.2 billion automotive press plant. Take a tour of the 32 000 m2 Ogihara South Africa automotive factory and see how parts for Toyota cars are manufactured. Located in the Dube TradePort’s TradeZone 2 in KwaZulu-Natal, this manufacturing plant is the largest investment within the Dube TradePort. Showcasing the huge success of this Special Economic Zone (SEZ). Think of a SEZ as a “business-friendly bubble” inside a country. It makes it easier and cheaper to do business. It’s a dedicated area with lower taxes, less red tape, and better infrastructure, designed to attract foreign direct investment and boost job creation. This plant has created over 250 jobs, and some workers are flown to Thailand for training. The government is pushing to have 60% of all car production take place locally in SA by 2035. Currently, it’s sitting at about 40%, and this factory accounts for about 2% of that. While walking through this production facility, I’m reminded of the Japanese Kaizen theory, which I came across while reading The Diary of a CEO. Kaizen focuses on making small, continuous improvements instead of big changes. It became well known at companies like Toyota, where workers could stop production to fix problems and suggest better ways of working, making the whole system more efficient over time. Seeing this factory in action, it’s clear they follow that mindset by constantly finding ways to work faster, easier, and better. I would love to hear what you think of the factory in the comment section below.
9:26

No, this is not another retail mall - it’s a R1.2 billion automotive press plant. Take a tour of the 32 000 m2 Ogihara South Africa automotive factory and see how parts for Toyota cars are manufactured. Located in the Dube TradePort’s TradeZone 2 in KwaZulu-Natal, this manufacturing plant is the largest investment within the Dube TradePort. Showcasing the huge success of this Special Economic Zone (SEZ). Think of a SEZ as a “business-friendly bubble” inside a country. It makes it easier and cheaper to do business. It’s a dedicated area with lower taxes, less red tape, and better infrastructure, designed to attract foreign direct investment and boost job creation. This plant has created over 250 jobs, and some workers are flown to Thailand for training. The government is pushing to have 60% of all car production take place locally in SA by 2035. Currently, it’s sitting at about 40%, and this factory accounts for about 2% of that. While walking through this production facility, I’m reminded of the Japanese Kaizen theory, which I came across while reading The Diary of a CEO. Kaizen focuses on making small, continuous improvements instead of big changes. It became well known at companies like Toyota, where workers could stop production to fix problems and suggest better ways of working, making the whole system more efficient over time. Seeing this factory in action, it’s clear they follow that mindset by constantly finding ways to work faster, easier, and better. I would love to hear what you think of the factory in the comment section below.

Ash Müller

23,109 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Wow Sora is so amazing, I wanted to really push it to the limits and see how it would handle a very complex prompt: “A 45-45-90 right triangle divides in half within itself repeatedly to create an organized fractal structure with self similarity, increasing in size from small at the top left to large at the bottom right, the whole structure is gradually growing from the top left point as the origin to create a seamless loop over 8 seconds, the individual triangles form platforms like a staircase descending downwards and have small rounded corners, as they move towards the bottom of the screen they each divide in half and one half moves downwards slightly to create another step and then the halves should divide in half again and one moves downwards to create one more step, after the second division curved cut-outs inside the triangles emerge upwards in a mechanical motion to form a continuous winding curved path towards the top of the structure, the edges of the path cutouts should be visible in the floor before they emerge so the viewer can anticipate the path being formed, after the path pieces move into place three Adélie penguins hop upwards along the path chasing a bright turquoise butterfly, the penguins should be hopping like the penguins in the following videos [ and should be progressing up the path while staying visually centered onscreen, the animation of the triangle platforms dividing and path forming and penguins hopping should be visually clear from top to bottom and arranged in such a way that you can look anywhere in the image to focus on a certain part of the story yet also be able to follow along from top to bottom to watch how the story unfolds throughout the image, the platforms should all be made of an elegant slightly reflective light wooden floor and white walls like a contemporary art museum, as each path segment moves upwards into place it is revealed that it is built on reflective chrome columns, lighting in the room is dark except for a single spotlight following the penguins and thin neon tube lighting around the edge of each triangle platform placed just below the floor level so that when the platforms divide and descend it reveals the neon light from the platform behind it which lights up the edges of the newly formed triangles and makes their form clear to the viewer's eye, some more neon lights inside the edge of the gap left by the path segments rising to form the path, the large dark triangle that makes up the upper right corner should be divided repeatedly by subtly glowing lines in a similar structure to the main layout but moving in the opposite direction as if to suggest that the 45-45-90 triangle on which the whole structure is based is being gradually disintegrated over time into a series of smaller identical triangles and emotionally relatable architecture as a frame for the penguins at the center to make them seem like the protagonist of the piece even though the true protagonist is the triangle itself, in the style of shapiro500, isometric 3d, beautiful lighting, best quality, masterpiece, hyperdetailed 4k, octane render” but I don't have Sora access so I made it by hand with Cinema 4D instead
0:24

Wow Sora is so amazing, I wanted to really push it to the limits and see how it would handle a very complex prompt: “A 45-45-90 right triangle divides in half within itself repeatedly to create an organized fractal structure with self similarity, increasing in size from small at the top left to large at the bottom right, the whole structure is gradually growing from the top left point as the origin to create a seamless loop over 8 seconds, the individual triangles form platforms like a staircase descending downwards and have small rounded corners, as they move towards the bottom of the screen they each divide in half and one half moves downwards slightly to create another step and then the halves should divide in half again and one moves downwards to create one more step, after the second division curved cut-outs inside the triangles emerge upwards in a mechanical motion to form a continuous winding curved path towards the top of the structure, the edges of the path cutouts should be visible in the floor before they emerge so the viewer can anticipate the path being formed, after the path pieces move into place three Adélie penguins hop upwards along the path chasing a bright turquoise butterfly, the penguins should be hopping like the penguins in the following videos [ and should be progressing up the path while staying visually centered onscreen, the animation of the triangle platforms dividing and path forming and penguins hopping should be visually clear from top to bottom and arranged in such a way that you can look anywhere in the image to focus on a certain part of the story yet also be able to follow along from top to bottom to watch how the story unfolds throughout the image, the platforms should all be made of an elegant slightly reflective light wooden floor and white walls like a contemporary art museum, as each path segment moves upwards into place it is revealed that it is built on reflective chrome columns, lighting in the room is dark except for a single spotlight following the penguins and thin neon tube lighting around the edge of each triangle platform placed just below the floor level so that when the platforms divide and descend it reveals the neon light from the platform behind it which lights up the edges of the newly formed triangles and makes their form clear to the viewer's eye, some more neon lights inside the edge of the gap left by the path segments rising to form the path, the large dark triangle that makes up the upper right corner should be divided repeatedly by subtly glowing lines in a similar structure to the main layout but moving in the opposite direction as if to suggest that the 45-45-90 triangle on which the whole structure is based is being gradually disintegrated over time into a series of smaller identical triangles and emotionally relatable architecture as a frame for the penguins at the center to make them seem like the protagonist of the piece even though the true protagonist is the triangle itself, in the style of shapiro500, isometric 3d, beautiful lighting, best quality, masterpiece, hyperdetailed 4k, octane render” but I don't have Sora access so I made it by hand with Cinema 4D instead

Gavin Shapiro 🐧

176,858 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce