Elite Crackdown On Free Speech Worldwide Intensifies
From North America to Australia to Europe, elites seek censorship, privacy invasions, and the prosecution of wrongthink as “pre-crime”…
The leaders of nations, representatives of international organizations, and philanthropists say they are committed to creating free and open societies. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook has independent fact-checkers, is open to all perspectives, and doesn’t interfere in elections. And, in response to questions from a colleague at Public, a representative from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations insisted the philanthropy supported free speech.
“In response to your effort to conflate any attempt to address hate speech as a frontal assault on free speech itself,” the Soros spokesperson said, “perhaps the words of the UN Secretary-General will help in illuminating a crucial distinction: ‘Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech.’”
But these words are a thin veil covering an aggressive attack on freedom of speech around the world, from Australia to North America to Europe, where the Digital Services Act, which demands Internet companies “Address any risk they pose on society, including public health, physical and mental well-being,” goes into effect today.
A blockbuster new investigation by Australia’s Sky News discovered that Meta-Facebook has been paying activists to serve as neutral fact-checkers while, in reality, using their power to censor their political enemies.
How did the fact-checkers abuse their powers? By smearing their political enemies as racists.
Discussing the implementation of the Digital Services Act (DSA), Ireland’s Media Minister defends the decision that a government appointed entity will ultimately decide what speech is permitted by citizens. This is the next phase in the control of opposition to the expansion of government controls. We are all traveling at the front of one long continuum toward tyranny.
Are the people of Ireland so weak and pathetic they cannot make decisions or formulate opinions for themselves? Of course not. This is not what government control of information is about. Government control of information is about CONTROL of the people. WATCH:
This twit is, of course, hiding behind directives received from the communist EUSSR & the UN, outsourcing responsibility & making a mockery of her own.
CTH has encountered criticism for our position on information. Perhaps it is important to step back and explain exactly why we should not be playing by rules established to control us while engaged in the battle of ideas. First, my position:
…”There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation”. There is only information you accept and information you do not accept. You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”…
There are only two elements within the public discussion of information, truth and not truth.
In an era filled with “fact-checkers” and institutional guardians at the gates of Big Tech, let me explain exactly why it is important not to accept the speech rules of the guards.
When you accept the terms “disinformation”, “misinformation” or the newest lingo, “malinformation,” you are beginning to categorize truth and lies in various shades. You are merging black and white, right and wrong, into various shades of grey. (More)
Stephen Miller: “This Is a Truly Authoritarian Ideology from the Left That We Are Seeing in America Today – They’re Laying Out the Template to Criminalize Speech” (Video)
Collusion:
…data included what Twitter described as “confidential communications,” or messages between President Trump and his senior advisers…
“This Is Going To Be A Horrendous Period” – Newt Gingrich Rages Over Trump Indictment
Not “going to be”. It is. Happening now.
“The people who want to control America… break any law, lie about any topic, and manipulate the system any way they can…”
A small ray of sunlight:
“To permit one side … to have a monopoly in expressing its views … is the antithesis of constitutional guarantees.”
