正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

🚨 Only in New York: Calling Gang Tracking a First Amendment Violation A bellwether for what’s coming in New York is the fight over the NYPD Gang Database. Commissioner Tisch and law-and-order defenders see its preservation as a major victory. But even at last week’s New York City Council... meeting, the database was being reframed as a free-speech violation. NYC Council Member Tiffany Cabán, who is also a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, used her remarks to portray the entire Gang Database as political persecution. She dismissed the work of the NYPD’s Social Media Analysis and Research Team (SMART) and ignored the role social media plays in documenting gang-related threats and violence. “Pictures on social media shouldn’t result in individuals getting imprisoned. So perhaps the Black and brown men who find themselves on gang databases based on social media posts shouldn’t be there or be arrested solely on that.” “We should have the First Amendment and a free press and make sure that we are not punished for political speech, which is happening right here in this city under a Trump administration.” Cabán collapses two unrelated issues, gang documentation and political speech, into the same narrative. But that only works if you pretend the Gang Database is a form of punishment. It isn’t. No one is arrested for being on it. It’s not a warrant or probable cause. It’s simply an intelligence tool that helps detectives track violent crews and anticipate retaliation, especially when conflicts are openly orchestrated on Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat. Her claim that “pictures on social media” are putting people in prison also doesn’t hold. Courts still require independent probable cause. Being listed in the database doesn’t trigger handcuffs; it gives officers situational awareness in neighborhoods where a few crews drive most of the violence. Her second claim, that the database “punishes” political speech, falls apart the same way. SMART isn’t criminalizing free speech. It tracks the online spaces where threats, beefs, and violent plans are posted in real time. Even critics concede that social media is now central to how crews recruit, organize, and escalate conflict. Why would police ignore the very platforms where gang conflicts are broadcast publicly? The alternative is policing with blindfolds on.show more

Stu Smith

43,399 subscribers

40,955 次观看 • 10 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

🚨 CUNY Law Professor Says NYPD Gang Database Must Be Abolished, Calls It a “Weapon” This is CUNY School of Law professor Babe Howell, speaking as part of the G.A.N.G.S. Coalition, arguing that the NYPD gang database should not be reformed but abolished outright, saying, “We must erase the database. Entirely it must be abolished.” Howell makes clear this is a total rejection of reform, adding, “There is no safe database” and “There’s no reforming this.” She then goes a step further, calling the database a “weapon,” saying, “This is not a safe tool… rather weapon. A weapon to be left in the hands of the NYPD.” She also tries to frame gang database abolition as an affordability issue, claiming that “part of affordability” means being able to get to school or work without being stopped, debriefed, or forced out of your way.

🚨 CUNY Law Professor Says NYPD Gang Database Must Be Abolished, Calls It a “Weapon” This is CUNY School of Law professor Babe Howell, speaking as part of the G.A.N.G.S. Coalition, arguing that the NYPD gang database should not be reformed but abolished outright, saying, “We must erase the database. Entirely it must be abolished.” Howell makes clear this is a total rejection of reform, adding, “There is no safe database” and “There’s no reforming this.” She then goes a step further, calling the database a “weapon,” saying, “This is not a safe tool… rather weapon. A weapon to be left in the hands of the NYPD.” She also tries to frame gang database abolition as an affordability issue, claiming that “part of affordability” means being able to get to school or work without being stopped, debriefed, or forced out of your way.

Stu Smith

99,830 次观看 • 5 个月前

🚨IS STARMER COMPROMISED? FROM FREE SPEECH DEFENDER TO JAILING PEOPLE FOR SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS 🤔🔒 What Happened To The Uk Prime Minister And Why His Stance On Social Media Arrests Flipped So Dramatically In 2012, as Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer proudly declared himself a guardian of free speech. In that now-infamous video he insisted: “Where a communication is merely offensive... principles of free speech require a high threshold, and dictate that a prosecution is unlikely to be in the public interest.” Today, Prime Minister Starmer presides over a regime that has racked up around 12,000 arrests tied solely to social media posts. The numbers are so grotesque that even Russia and China suddenly look like bastions of free speech by comparison. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Many on X are no longer asking politely — they’re outright declaring that Starmer has been compromised. Whether it’s political cowardice, shadowy external influence, or naked authoritarian instinct, the man who once set a high bar for prosecution now jails people for hurting feelings online. He still trots out the same tired lines about “protecting children” and preventing disorder after the 2024 riots. But the latest escalation is his determined push for brand-new laws specifically targeting “Islamophobic” content. Critics say this is not about hate — it’s about criminalising legitimate public concern and dissent over mass migration, the rapid demographic changes, growing Islamic influence in public life, grooming gang scandals that were long ignored, and the general state of the country. What many see as valid political criticism and free debate is now being re-labelled as illegal “Islamophobia” to shut it down. What started as emergency measures after unrest has quietly morphed into a broader, relentless expansion of censorship dressed up in ever-changing justifications. The old Keir is nowhere to be seen. The contrast is damning.

J Stewart

517,626 次观看 • 6 个月前

What is going on with Labour and social media? The Free Speech Union has been discussing internally whether Andy Burnham will be better or worse than Sir Keir Starmer when it comes to free speech. We’ve concluded that he’ll be just as bad — if not worse. Andy Burnham’s team has confirmed that he will push ahead with Starmer’s controversial social media ban for under-16s. We also know that the Technology Secretary, Liz Kendall, is looking into a potential ban on VPNs, which would put the UK in the same league as Iran, Iraq and North Korea. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, led by Burnham ally and constituency neighbour Lisa Nandy, has also published a Green Paper, Watch This Space, which proposes forcing social media companies to prioritise the promotion of what the Government deems to be “trustworthy” news sources — namely content from public service broadcasters such as the BBC. There is no evidence that Andy Burnham would abandon these plans when he enters Downing Street in just 13 days’ time. This is a deeply concerning proposal and an extraordinary interference with freedom of association and free speech on social media — one that the Free Speech Union opposes wholeheartedly. In another full-frontal assault on free speech and our right to engage in open political debate online, Labour’s Deputy Leader and close Burnham ally Lucy Powell wants to impose new legal duties through the Representation of the People Bill that would effectively treat private citizens as broadcasters and censor social media platforms during election periods. This raises serious practical questions. Would individuals be prevented from expressing political views on social media during elections? The Free Speech Union also cannot see how such restrictions could realistically apply only to UK citizens. Surely they would have to extend to overseas users as well? President Trump and JD Vance would almost certainly have something to say about that. This all seems to be part of Labour’s explanation for why it is struggling in the polls. Rather than recognising that people are concerned about issues such as mass uncontrolled migration, higher taxes, unemployment and soaring energy bills, Labour ministers appear to believe that voters are simply being misled by misinformation and disinformation on platforms such as X. Last Thursday, Lisa Nandy flounced off X, citing an increase in abuse and the spread of misinformation and disinformation. If Government ministers — particularly those responsible for the media — are concerned about misinformation, they should remain on the platform and challenge it. Trying to suppress it is not the answer. As Louis Brandeis famously said, “The remedy to harmful speech is more speech, not enforced silence.” Watch Free Speech Union General Secretary Lord Young below 👇

What is going on with Labour and social media? The Free Speech Union has been discussing internally whether Andy Burnham will be better or worse than Sir Keir Starmer when it comes to free speech. We’ve concluded that he’ll be just as bad — if not worse. Andy Burnham’s team has confirmed that he will push ahead with Starmer’s controversial social media ban for under-16s. We also know that the Technology Secretary, Liz Kendall, is looking into a potential ban on VPNs, which would put the UK in the same league as Iran, Iraq and North Korea. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, led by Burnham ally and constituency neighbour Lisa Nandy, has also published a Green Paper, Watch This Space, which proposes forcing social media companies to prioritise the promotion of what the Government deems to be “trustworthy” news sources — namely content from public service broadcasters such as the BBC. There is no evidence that Andy Burnham would abandon these plans when he enters Downing Street in just 13 days’ time. This is a deeply concerning proposal and an extraordinary interference with freedom of association and free speech on social media — one that the Free Speech Union opposes wholeheartedly. In another full-frontal assault on free speech and our right to engage in open political debate online, Labour’s Deputy Leader and close Burnham ally Lucy Powell wants to impose new legal duties through the Representation of the People Bill that would effectively treat private citizens as broadcasters and censor social media platforms during election periods. This raises serious practical questions. Would individuals be prevented from expressing political views on social media during elections? The Free Speech Union also cannot see how such restrictions could realistically apply only to UK citizens. Surely they would have to extend to overseas users as well? President Trump and JD Vance would almost certainly have something to say about that. This all seems to be part of Labour’s explanation for why it is struggling in the polls. Rather than recognising that people are concerned about issues such as mass uncontrolled migration, higher taxes, unemployment and soaring energy bills, Labour ministers appear to believe that voters are simply being misled by misinformation and disinformation on platforms such as X. Last Thursday, Lisa Nandy flounced off X, citing an increase in abuse and the spread of misinformation and disinformation. If Government ministers — particularly those responsible for the media — are concerned about misinformation, they should remain on the platform and challenge it. Trying to suppress it is not the answer. As Louis Brandeis famously said, “The remedy to harmful speech is more speech, not enforced silence.” Watch Free Speech Union General Secretary Lord Young below 👇

The Free Speech Union

62,181 次观看 • 2 个月前

The fact that Tim Walz’s political future was ended without the help of the legacy media is a testament to the strength of free speech platforms like X. Investigative journalism no longer lives exclusively in newsrooms, it lives on social media, where the truth can’t be buried by the Praetorian Guard media, which seeks to kill any story that may be harmful to democrats. We watched them gaslight and gate-keep for years under the Biden and Obama presidencies, but it’s NOT going to work anymore.

The fact that Tim Walz’s political future was ended without the help of the legacy media is a testament to the strength of free speech platforms like X. Investigative journalism no longer lives exclusively in newsrooms, it lives on social media, where the truth can’t be buried by the Praetorian Guard media, which seeks to kill any story that may be harmful to democrats. We watched them gaslight and gate-keep for years under the Biden and Obama presidencies, but it’s NOT going to work anymore.

Wesley Hunt

116,993 次观看 • 8 个月前

JUST IN: The FBI is investigating the Vice Mayor of Cudahy, California, Cynthia Gonzalez, after she posted a video on social media calling on the 18th Street and Florencia 13 gang members to protect their “turf” against ICE, according to Fox News. Gonzalez even told the gang leadership to “just f*cking get your members in order.” “Now that your hood is being invaded by the biggest gang there is. There ain’t a peep out of you.” LOCK HER UP!

JUST IN: The FBI is investigating the Vice Mayor of Cudahy, California, Cynthia Gonzalez, after she posted a video on social media calling on the 18th Street and Florencia 13 gang members to protect their “turf” against ICE, according to Fox News. Gonzalez even told the gang leadership to “just f*cking get your members in order.” “Now that your hood is being invaded by the biggest gang there is. There ain’t a peep out of you.” LOCK HER UP!

RedWave Press

2,087,107 次观看 • 1 年前

#WATCH | Shimla: Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu's Principal Media Advisor, Naresh Chauhan, says, "Kangana ji’s meeting, as the Member of Parliament from Mandi, which we also saw on social media and in the media, the way she was reprimanding or scolding the officials, personally, we do not support it. There may be shortcomings in the system, and there may be shortcomings on the part of an officer. But the purpose of a meeting is that you have a conversation. Take feedback on all your plans. Get details about at what level there is a problem in a particular scheme. I think Kangana ji, due to a lack of political experience, does not have political maturity. Because everyone knows the field she comes from. Secondly, she expressed her frustration and pressure in the way she mentioned that the ₹11 crore amount of my MP fund has not been spent. Whereas officers and employees all have their own self-respect. Everyone’s dignity and respect should be maintained. It is also necessary to get the work done. If an officer or employee is responsible for delaying something or not doing the work, then they should also be questioned. But there is a dignity and a way of doing that as well. And to make statements that officers in Himachal Pradesh do not work is absolutely wrong. We completely disagree with this..."

#WATCH | Shimla: Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu's Principal Media Advisor, Naresh Chauhan, says, "Kangana ji’s meeting, as the Member of Parliament from Mandi, which we also saw on social media and in the media, the way she was reprimanding or scolding the officials, personally, we do not support it. There may be shortcomings in the system, and there may be shortcomings on the part of an officer. But the purpose of a meeting is that you have a conversation. Take feedback on all your plans. Get details about at what level there is a problem in a particular scheme. I think Kangana ji, due to a lack of political experience, does not have political maturity. Because everyone knows the field she comes from. Secondly, she expressed her frustration and pressure in the way she mentioned that the ₹11 crore amount of my MP fund has not been spent. Whereas officers and employees all have their own self-respect. Everyone’s dignity and respect should be maintained. It is also necessary to get the work done. If an officer or employee is responsible for delaying something or not doing the work, then they should also be questioned. But there is a dignity and a way of doing that as well. And to make statements that officers in Himachal Pradesh do not work is absolutely wrong. We completely disagree with this..."

ANI

42,219 次观看 • 17 天前

🇺🇸🇮🇱 AMBASSADOR HUCKABEE ON SOCIAL MEDIA: "THEY'RE DEPRAVED ON THIS IDEA THAT ISRAEL IS THE BAD GUY" Mike Huckabee, U.S. Ambassador to Israel, just dropped one of his most fiery takes yet. In a speech defending Israel, Huckabee tore into critics on social media, comparing platforms like X and TikTok to a “sewer” poisoning minds. His target? The growing online sentiment, especially among young people, that paints Israel as the villain in the war in Gaza. He blamed that view on ignorance, misinformation, and a twisted moral compass driven by online outrage culture. “Social media is a sewer. And we got a lot of people eating right out of the sewer. And it’s no wonder that they’re sick. Their minds are sick. They’re depraved and diseased with this idea that somehow Israel is the bad guy. Anyone with a conscience should stand with Israel, not against it. If you believe terrorists are the victims, you’re morally upside down.” Source: Clash Report, Ambassador Mike Huckabee

🇺🇸🇮🇱 AMBASSADOR HUCKABEE ON SOCIAL MEDIA: "THEY'RE DEPRAVED ON THIS IDEA THAT ISRAEL IS THE BAD GUY" Mike Huckabee, U.S. Ambassador to Israel, just dropped one of his most fiery takes yet. In a speech defending Israel, Huckabee tore into critics on social media, comparing platforms like X and TikTok to a “sewer” poisoning minds. His target? The growing online sentiment, especially among young people, that paints Israel as the villain in the war in Gaza. He blamed that view on ignorance, misinformation, and a twisted moral compass driven by online outrage culture. “Social media is a sewer. And we got a lot of people eating right out of the sewer. And it’s no wonder that they’re sick. Their minds are sick. They’re depraved and diseased with this idea that somehow Israel is the bad guy. Anyone with a conscience should stand with Israel, not against it. If you believe terrorists are the victims, you’re morally upside down.” Source: Clash Report, Ambassador Mike Huckabee

Mario Nawfal

142,660 次观看 • 9 个月前

People in England are being arrested over social media posts that are not threats and have nothing to do with national security. We should be paying close attention to this. This is what happens when societies become overly sensitive and start policing speech instead of protecting it. This is the logical end point of censor culture. And it’s exactly why we need to make sure this never happens in America.

People in England are being arrested over social media posts that are not threats and have nothing to do with national security. We should be paying close attention to this. This is what happens when societies become overly sensitive and start policing speech instead of protecting it. This is the logical end point of censor culture. And it’s exactly why we need to make sure this never happens in America.

Jeffery Mead

838,130 次观看 • 9 个月前

#WATCH | Delhi: On social media and child pornography issue, Advocate HS Phoolka says, "... The issue which is going on very prominently these days is that Instagram is promoting the videos of child sexual abuse. On 23rd September 2024, the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment, Just Rights for Children Alliance versus State of Tamil Nadu. In the judgment, the Supreme Court has clearly said that the social media platforms which are allowing these videos to run should immediately stop them; not only stop the video, but they should also give the information to the police so that action can be taken under the POCSO Act against the person who has downloaded these videos and who has uploaded these videos also. And let me tell you, under this judgment, not only uploading the video is an offence, but downloading and seeing this video is also an offence. This was a case in Tamil Nadu. There is a young boy who had downloaded the child sexual abuse videos and was watching them, and now this is being posted. All the people who are using social media should know that it is being posted by many organisations. One of them is NCMEC in America. All those people who are downloading and watching child sexual abuse photos, they are immediately—the NCMEC learn about it, comes to know about it, and passes on the information to the Government of India, and criminal cases are started against the person who is downloading and watching such cases. The Supreme Court has passed a judgment, and the Supreme Court has said that anybody downloading or watching the child sexual abuse video, he is also liable for imprisonment under the POCSO Act. And the Supreme Court also, in the judgment, has said the intermediary is responsible not only to stop this video but also to inform the police. And if the intermediary does not inform the police, that is, a social media platform does not inform the police, then the social media platform is liable to be prosecuted. Criminal cases should be lodged against the social media platform under the POCSO Act. And in this case, in the Instagram case, not only do they stop the videos, they promote the videos, and they also file an application day-to-day in the Supreme Court. The directions of the Supreme Court are not being followed. In our application, the Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union of India, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Ministry of Law."

#WATCH | Delhi: On social media and child pornography issue, Advocate HS Phoolka says, "... The issue which is going on very prominently these days is that Instagram is promoting the videos of child sexual abuse. On 23rd September 2024, the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgment, Just Rights for Children Alliance versus State of Tamil Nadu. In the judgment, the Supreme Court has clearly said that the social media platforms which are allowing these videos to run should immediately stop them; not only stop the video, but they should also give the information to the police so that action can be taken under the POCSO Act against the person who has downloaded these videos and who has uploaded these videos also. And let me tell you, under this judgment, not only uploading the video is an offence, but downloading and seeing this video is also an offence. This was a case in Tamil Nadu. There is a young boy who had downloaded the child sexual abuse videos and was watching them, and now this is being posted. All the people who are using social media should know that it is being posted by many organisations. One of them is NCMEC in America. All those people who are downloading and watching child sexual abuse photos, they are immediately—the NCMEC learn about it, comes to know about it, and passes on the information to the Government of India, and criminal cases are started against the person who is downloading and watching such cases. The Supreme Court has passed a judgment, and the Supreme Court has said that anybody downloading or watching the child sexual abuse video, he is also liable for imprisonment under the POCSO Act. And the Supreme Court also, in the judgment, has said the intermediary is responsible not only to stop this video but also to inform the police. And if the intermediary does not inform the police, that is, a social media platform does not inform the police, then the social media platform is liable to be prosecuted. Criminal cases should be lodged against the social media platform under the POCSO Act. And in this case, in the Instagram case, not only do they stop the videos, they promote the videos, and they also file an application day-to-day in the Supreme Court. The directions of the Supreme Court are not being followed. In our application, the Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union of India, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Ministry of Law."

ANI

27,448 次观看 • 1 个月前

This morning I see a lot of people attacking New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham for comments she made in a video. Below you will see part of that video but also additional context that is not being shared by others on social media. Yes Grisham is suspending open and concealed carry laws in small portions of her state for 30 days. These are areas with high gun crime. No, we don’t know if her suspension is unconstitutional or not until it's challenged and decided on by a judge, but she said she is open to a challenge. Unlike what many on social media are claiming, she never said that the 1st and 2nd Amendments “do not exist.” What she did say is that “no constitutional right is intended to be absolute, there are restrictions on free speech, there are restrictions on my freedoms.” And to some degree, that’s true. There are many states in America where there are enormous restrictions on who can carry a firearm on the streets. So far these restrictions have held up. I don’t know if her law will hold up, but to claim that she wants to tear up the Constitution is an extreme view on this. She’s literally calling for a challenge so that the courts can decide. Laws are ruled unconstitutional all the time. And perhaps this one will be too. Why aren't these same people outraged that Trump literally said, "Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."

This morning I see a lot of people attacking New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham for comments she made in a video. Below you will see part of that video but also additional context that is not being shared by others on social media. Yes Grisham is suspending open and concealed carry laws in small portions of her state for 30 days. These are areas with high gun crime. No, we don’t know if her suspension is unconstitutional or not until it's challenged and decided on by a judge, but she said she is open to a challenge. Unlike what many on social media are claiming, she never said that the 1st and 2nd Amendments “do not exist.” What she did say is that “no constitutional right is intended to be absolute, there are restrictions on free speech, there are restrictions on my freedoms.” And to some degree, that’s true. There are many states in America where there are enormous restrictions on who can carry a firearm on the streets. So far these restrictions have held up. I don’t know if her law will hold up, but to claim that she wants to tear up the Constitution is an extreme view on this. She’s literally calling for a challenge so that the courts can decide. Laws are ruled unconstitutional all the time. And perhaps this one will be too. Why aren't these same people outraged that Trump literally said, "Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution."

Ed Krassenstein

1,868,548 次观看 • 3 年前

Billionaire Shlomo Kramer calls for the First Amendment to be eliminated in the United States. Why is this person being given a voice on our mainstream media platforms? "It's time to limit the first amendment in order to protect it, and quickly before it's too late." "We need to control all the social media platforms. We need [the government to] stack rank the authenticity of every person that expresses themselves online and take control over what they are saying based on that ranking. And we need to educate people against lies.."

Billionaire Shlomo Kramer calls for the First Amendment to be eliminated in the United States. Why is this person being given a voice on our mainstream media platforms? "It's time to limit the first amendment in order to protect it, and quickly before it's too late." "We need to control all the social media platforms. We need [the government to] stack rank the authenticity of every person that expresses themselves online and take control over what they are saying based on that ranking. And we need to educate people against lies.."

Orwell Day

16,625 次观看 • 1 个月前

Texas is now arguing in federal court that what you say on social media is “commercial speech,” a category the courts have long treated as less protected under the First Amendment. If that argument wins, the government gets far more room to regulate who can speak online and under what conditions. Harrison sees exactly what’s at stake. “The First Amendment is critically important, and I will oppose, and I’m going to continue to oppose, anything that that looks like it’s going to impede the First Amendment freedoms of the hundreds of thousands of Texans that I am honored to represent,” he said, noting that the founders protected speech precisely because unpopular speech is the kind that needs protecting. And the “commercial speech” framing collapses on contact with how people actually use these platforms. Social media is where Americans contact their representatives, organize politically, and challenge official narratives. It is the town square, and Harrison is living proof of what happens there. “If it were not for social media platforms like X, there’s no chance I would have been able to force through, you know, even probably half of the conservative policies that I’ve been able to force through in the Texas government,” he admitted, describing a legislature “run by a rather liberal coalition of fake Republicans and Democrats.” His method has been simple: bypass the establishment media, go “around the power broker elite in the Texas government by going directly to the people.” “It’s those types of tools in 2026 that are empowering the citizenry to stand up against tyrannical big government progressive Marxist initiatives by those in power,” he said. That is the citizen engagement these laws put at risk. Which raises the obvious question: if this isn’t really about protecting kids, what is it about?

Texas is now arguing in federal court that what you say on social media is “commercial speech,” a category the courts have long treated as less protected under the First Amendment. If that argument wins, the government gets far more room to regulate who can speak online and under what conditions. Harrison sees exactly what’s at stake. “The First Amendment is critically important, and I will oppose, and I’m going to continue to oppose, anything that that looks like it’s going to impede the First Amendment freedoms of the hundreds of thousands of Texans that I am honored to represent,” he said, noting that the founders protected speech precisely because unpopular speech is the kind that needs protecting. And the “commercial speech” framing collapses on contact with how people actually use these platforms. Social media is where Americans contact their representatives, organize politically, and challenge official narratives. It is the town square, and Harrison is living proof of what happens there. “If it were not for social media platforms like X, there’s no chance I would have been able to force through, you know, even probably half of the conservative policies that I’ve been able to force through in the Texas government,” he admitted, describing a legislature “run by a rather liberal coalition of fake Republicans and Democrats.” His method has been simple: bypass the establishment media, go “around the power broker elite in the Texas government by going directly to the people.” “It’s those types of tools in 2026 that are empowering the citizenry to stand up against tyrannical big government progressive Marxist initiatives by those in power,” he said. That is the citizen engagement these laws put at risk. Which raises the obvious question: if this isn’t really about protecting kids, what is it about?

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

17,961 次观看 • 2 个月前

It's All Much Worse Than I Thought The corporate media are all-in on government censorship Over the last three years, we have come to learn of the role that our own government officials have played in demanding censorship by social media platforms. Some of this censorship was overt, particularly as it related to COVID. However, some of it was also done in secrecy, as we discovered in the Twitter Files. Many of us thought that once we had uncovered the censorship, governments would be sufficiently embarrassed to stop doing it. And to some extent, that has been the case. But now, governments around the world are stepping up their efforts to demand more censorship. Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation quietly announced it had resumed its outreach to social media companies. Scotland’s Police could even investigate comedians under a new hate speech law if someone complains about a joke. Major media outlets are currently working with government-funded censorship activists at the University of Washington and Stanford Internet Observatory to demand greater censorship in the name of “saving Democracy.” Without a doubt, those of us who have uncovered censorship have had an impact. On “60 Minutes” last Sunday, the government-funded advocates of censorship at the University of Washington said they have stopped demanding censorship of social media platforms. Simply drawing awareness to who is demanding censorship and who is funding them has weakened their power. But governments, government-funded NGOs, and the news media have been relentless in their demands for a crackdown on speech they deem hateful and false. At the Supreme Court last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed unironic concern that the First Amendment restricts the government’s ability to censor. And everyone from the New Yorker to the New York Times to NBC is suggesting that the only people who are worried about government censorship are Trump supporters, which is obviously false. The 60 Minutes segment was particularly shocking. Lesly Stahl never mentioned the mass censorship of accurate information about COVID’S origins, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. She falsely suggested that shining a light on the censorship activists was tantamount to persecution. And she suggested that if the government didn’t do more to censor misinformation, Trump supporters would overthrow the government, which is a form of disinformation aimed at scaring people into giving up our first and most fundamental freedom. There are many reasons why they are doing this....

It's All Much Worse Than I Thought The corporate media are all-in on government censorship Over the last three years, we have come to learn of the role that our own government officials have played in demanding censorship by social media platforms. Some of this censorship was overt, particularly as it related to COVID. However, some of it was also done in secrecy, as we discovered in the Twitter Files. Many of us thought that once we had uncovered the censorship, governments would be sufficiently embarrassed to stop doing it. And to some extent, that has been the case. But now, governments around the world are stepping up their efforts to demand more censorship. Last week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation quietly announced it had resumed its outreach to social media companies. Scotland’s Police could even investigate comedians under a new hate speech law if someone complains about a joke. Major media outlets are currently working with government-funded censorship activists at the University of Washington and Stanford Internet Observatory to demand greater censorship in the name of “saving Democracy.” Without a doubt, those of us who have uncovered censorship have had an impact. On “60 Minutes” last Sunday, the government-funded advocates of censorship at the University of Washington said they have stopped demanding censorship of social media platforms. Simply drawing awareness to who is demanding censorship and who is funding them has weakened their power. But governments, government-funded NGOs, and the news media have been relentless in their demands for a crackdown on speech they deem hateful and false. At the Supreme Court last week, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed unironic concern that the First Amendment restricts the government’s ability to censor. And everyone from the New Yorker to the New York Times to NBC is suggesting that the only people who are worried about government censorship are Trump supporters, which is obviously false. The 60 Minutes segment was particularly shocking. Lesly Stahl never mentioned the mass censorship of accurate information about COVID’S origins, COVID vaccines, and lockdowns. She falsely suggested that shining a light on the censorship activists was tantamount to persecution. And she suggested that if the government didn’t do more to censor misinformation, Trump supporters would overthrow the government, which is a form of disinformation aimed at scaring people into giving up our first and most fundamental freedom. There are many reasons why they are doing this....

Michael Shellenberger

21,897,944 次观看 • 2 年前

Can I just put it out there to you all that the Iranian people the majority of them are highly educated smart intellectual people and the ones who are in comments of mine and other people are actually just sick individuals that are working on a plan and their plan is to swear their way and trying to intimidate and abuse social media accounts. All they’re doing is showing themselves to be nothing but uneducated scumbags that work for Israel almost all of them. I’ve got next to nothing followers as in like zero followers or three followers or four followers some of them even have a blue Tech, but they’ve got all the five followers. This is an operation that we put in place to try and take control of the narrative on social media reality on the ground in Iran. There is no willingness whatsoever for what’s happening in social media in the West. There is no one supporting these people in Iran. So whatever they wanna say and do over here means nothing to the people on their own nothing. This young lady in this video is pretty much the same person as me and the sense that she is an Iranian has not lost her sensible sense of National identity and understands what’s right and what’s wrong and if people want to take the side of Israel and fly the flag of the star of David is some kind of symbol of white nationalism Asif that’s gonna save Iran you are at your mind. Don’t worry all of this will go away hopefully the next couple of weeks with these idiots and they’ll find somewhere else to go and annoy and being a nuisance too as these bots normally are. Fuck Israel 🇮🇱

Can I just put it out there to you all that the Iranian people the majority of them are highly educated smart intellectual people and the ones who are in comments of mine and other people are actually just sick individuals that are working on a plan and their plan is to swear their way and trying to intimidate and abuse social media accounts. All they’re doing is showing themselves to be nothing but uneducated scumbags that work for Israel almost all of them. I’ve got next to nothing followers as in like zero followers or three followers or four followers some of them even have a blue Tech, but they’ve got all the five followers. This is an operation that we put in place to try and take control of the narrative on social media reality on the ground in Iran. There is no willingness whatsoever for what’s happening in social media in the West. There is no one supporting these people in Iran. So whatever they wanna say and do over here means nothing to the people on their own nothing. This young lady in this video is pretty much the same person as me and the sense that she is an Iranian has not lost her sensible sense of National identity and understands what’s right and what’s wrong and if people want to take the side of Israel and fly the flag of the star of David is some kind of symbol of white nationalism Asif that’s gonna save Iran you are at your mind. Don’t worry all of this will go away hopefully the next couple of weeks with these idiots and they’ll find somewhere else to go and annoy and being a nuisance too as these bots normally are. Fuck Israel 🇮🇱

Hussain “Hoz” Shafiei

47,583 次观看 • 8 个月前

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, And Barack Obama Back Brazil-Style Censorship Next Democratic president and vice president may implement sweeping plan for "fighting misinformation" and "hate speech" Brazil’s banning and blocking of the social media platform X is far more extreme than anything being proposed in the United States, social media regulation experts are telling the New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications. One implication is that we need not be concerned that Brazil-style censorship will ever happen in the US. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz both repeatedly endorsed the three main censorship tactics used by the Brazilian government: censorship of election “misinformation,” de-platforming political opponents, and cross-platform bans, which ban a person not just from one social media platform but from many or even all of them. Harris repeatedly called for the US government to deplatform then-President Donald Trump. In an October 2019 debate, Harris said, “His Twitter account should be shut down.” After the debate she said, “You can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply. There has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites…They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.” When Walz in 2022 called for censorship of election misinformation, he claimed, falsely, that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech and misinformation. “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” said Walz on MSNBC, “and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, or deliberate lying are allowed in most circumstances. First Amendment scholar Jeff Koseff last year published a book, Liar In A Crowded Theater, documenting this history. It’s true that Harris and Walz have not recently repeated their calls for government censorship and that what they called for was not as extreme as what Brazil is doing. They made their statements two to five years ago. And neither Harris nor Walz called for completely banning and blocking social media platforms as the Brazilian government did. But none of that takes away from the severity of their calls for industry-wide, cross-platform deplatforming through government regulation of social media platforms. Before the Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes banned and blocked X in Brazil, he sought cross-platform deplatforming of opposition politicians and independent journalists. Indeed, it was precisely his demands for such cross-platform bans that X owner Elon Musk rejected, which led to Moraes’ decision to block the whole platform. For years, Democrats have sought to regulate social media platforms both directly through the executive branch and through Congress. In 2021 and 2022, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the “Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act,” “Algorithmic Justice Act,” and the “Social Media NUDGE Act” to require social media companies to censor content that could cause “emotional injury,” ban algorithms that result in “discrimination or similar harms,” and impose “limits on account creation and content sharing” of disfavored individuals and their views. While some of these bills have good goals, including protecting privacy, preventing harassment, and increasing transparency, they all give the government far too much power to censor disfavored speech. In the spring of 2022, the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a “Disinformation Governance Board.” One week prior, former President Barack Obama advocated for sweeping US government censorship of social media platforms in a major speech at Stanford University, which appeared timed to support the Disinformation Governance Board and advocate for Congress to regulate social media content for disfavored content. Obama’s speech gave a clear picture of the censorship a Harris-Walz administration may impose. He claimed that “social media platforms tend not to wanna do anything,” and “a regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place” for “slowing the spread of harmful content.” Obama stressed that government “regulation has to be part of the answer.” In his speech, Obama praised the aggressive social censorship that the European Union is currently pursuing through its Digital Services Act (DSA). For decades, the Democrats were the party of free speech in the United States. What changed? How did Harris, Walz, Obama, and dozens of Democratic Senators and members of Congress come to support Brazil-style censorship? Please subscribe now to support Public's investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, And Barack Obama Back Brazil-Style Censorship Next Democratic president and vice president may implement sweeping plan for "fighting misinformation" and "hate speech" Brazil’s banning and blocking of the social media platform X is far more extreme than anything being proposed in the United States, social media regulation experts are telling the New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications. One implication is that we need not be concerned that Brazil-style censorship will ever happen in the US. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz both repeatedly endorsed the three main censorship tactics used by the Brazilian government: censorship of election “misinformation,” de-platforming political opponents, and cross-platform bans, which ban a person not just from one social media platform but from many or even all of them. Harris repeatedly called for the US government to deplatform then-President Donald Trump. In an October 2019 debate, Harris said, “His Twitter account should be shut down.” After the debate she said, “You can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply. There has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites…They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.” When Walz in 2022 called for censorship of election misinformation, he claimed, falsely, that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech and misinformation. “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” said Walz on MSNBC, “and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, or deliberate lying are allowed in most circumstances. First Amendment scholar Jeff Koseff last year published a book, Liar In A Crowded Theater, documenting this history. It’s true that Harris and Walz have not recently repeated their calls for government censorship and that what they called for was not as extreme as what Brazil is doing. They made their statements two to five years ago. And neither Harris nor Walz called for completely banning and blocking social media platforms as the Brazilian government did. But none of that takes away from the severity of their calls for industry-wide, cross-platform deplatforming through government regulation of social media platforms. Before the Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes banned and blocked X in Brazil, he sought cross-platform deplatforming of opposition politicians and independent journalists. Indeed, it was precisely his demands for such cross-platform bans that X owner Elon Musk rejected, which led to Moraes’ decision to block the whole platform. For years, Democrats have sought to regulate social media platforms both directly through the executive branch and through Congress. In 2021 and 2022, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the “Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act,” “Algorithmic Justice Act,” and the “Social Media NUDGE Act” to require social media companies to censor content that could cause “emotional injury,” ban algorithms that result in “discrimination or similar harms,” and impose “limits on account creation and content sharing” of disfavored individuals and their views. While some of these bills have good goals, including protecting privacy, preventing harassment, and increasing transparency, they all give the government far too much power to censor disfavored speech. In the spring of 2022, the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a “Disinformation Governance Board.” One week prior, former President Barack Obama advocated for sweeping US government censorship of social media platforms in a major speech at Stanford University, which appeared timed to support the Disinformation Governance Board and advocate for Congress to regulate social media content for disfavored content. Obama’s speech gave a clear picture of the censorship a Harris-Walz administration may impose. He claimed that “social media platforms tend not to wanna do anything,” and “a regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place” for “slowing the spread of harmful content.” Obama stressed that government “regulation has to be part of the answer.” In his speech, Obama praised the aggressive social censorship that the European Union is currently pursuing through its Digital Services Act (DSA). For decades, the Democrats were the party of free speech in the United States. What changed? How did Harris, Walz, Obama, and dozens of Democratic Senators and members of Congress come to support Brazil-style censorship? Please subscribe now to support Public's investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

131,422 次观看 • 2 年前