Popular culture is often a field upon which political issues manifest and play out. In Germany and several other countries historiographic activity on certain events that may shed light on or contradict official narratives is verboten and can result in imprisonment. The purview of today’s censors using outrage to suppress utterances with which they disagree or take offense knows no limits.
If not for the First Amendment the United States such authoritarian maneuvers to silence debate on a host of issues and events would have already come to pass. Major corporations are only too happy to appease and abet such efforts, as the report below suggests. Internet behemoths such as Google, YouTube, and Amazon have already exhibited their censorial prowess to silence sociopolitical and cultural exchange.
As reported in The Guardian:
Big businesses have joined growing criticism in Germany over the awarding of an annual music prize to a pair of rappers accused of antisemitic lyrics, with Airbus chief executive Tom Enders adding his condemnation of the decision.
German executive Enders told the Bild am Sonntag newspaper he was shocked by what he considered widespread ambivalence about the Echo award given to rappers Kollegah and Farid Bang on Thursday, which coincided with HolocaustRemembrance Day. The rappers deny they are antisemitic.
“That hurts Germany’s international reputation. Is antisemitism becoming acceptable in Germany?” Enders told the newspaper, adding it was his belief that an anti-Muslim text would have generated far more outrage.
The BVMI German music industry association had drawn increasing criticism in recent days for honouring the rappers’ album, which sold more than 200,000 copies despite lyrics considered offensive by many Jewish groups and others because of lyrics that refer to the Auschwitz Nazi death camp.
In the song “0815“, the rappers talk about their bodies being “more defined than Auschwitz prisoners” while another says, “I’m doing another Holocaust, coming with a Molotov.”
In this debut of the MemoryHoleBlog’s news analysis and commentary video series we examine the lawsuits filed against Alex Jones and Infowars’ parent company on April 16, 2018.
In 2017 when Jones was sued by James Alefantis over “Pizzagate” the broadcaster settled out of court and agreed to never use the term again, thus leading the way in chilling investigation and commentary on the scandal. Will the public witness the same tactic used in responding to suits filed by Sandy Hook massacre victims’ families?
Broadcaster’s Comments Prompted Death Threats, “Torment”
Editor’s Note: In an ongoing war against free speech the popular media personality has been sued in Austin Texas by two families of Sandy Hook massacre event victims. The legal actions are significant because if they are allowed to proceed Jones’ defense team will have the opportunity to proceed through discovery with the parties, requiring information and sworn testimony pertinent to plaintiffs’ claims be provided before proceeding to trial.
(April 17, 2018)
Alex Jones has spent years claiming the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School ― where a shooter killed 20 small children and six adults ― was faked. He has claimed the parents of these dead children are liars and “crisis actors.”
Now, those parents are coming after him.
Radio host Alex Jones commenting on Sandy Hook massacre in January 2013
In a pair of lawsuits filed late Monday, the parents of two children who died in the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, say Jones’ repeated lies and conspiratorial ravings have led to death threats. The suits join at least two other recent cases accusing the Infowars host of defamation.
I lost my son. I buried my son. I held my son with a bullet hole through his head.Neil Heslin, father of a 6-year-old boy killed during the Sandy Hook shooting.
Neil Heslin, the father of a 6-year-old boy killed in the shooting, and Leonard Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa, who lost their own little boy, filed the suits in Austin, Texas, where Jones’ conspiracy-minded media outlet is based. Each suit is seeking more than $1 million in damages from Jones, Infowars and a related company, Free Speech Systems LLC. Infowars reporter Owen Shroyer is also named in one of the suits.
“Even after these folks had to experience this trauma, for the next five years they were tormented by Alex Jones with vicious lies about them,” Mark Bankston, the lawyer handling the cases for the parents, told HuffPost. “And these lies were meant to convince his audience that the Sandy Hook parents are frauds and have perpetrated a sinister lie on the American people.”
Second Law Enforcement Officer in Disbelief Over School Shooting
By James F. Tracy
Alongside the Facebook posts and unusual death of Broward County Deputy Jason Fitzsimons a second South Florida law enforcement officer is using social media to publicly question the February 14, 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.
Over the past several weeks Ericson Harrell of the North Miami Police Department has taken to Facebook to share ideas and insights with like-minded critical thinkers on complex issues and events. He’s been asking important questions about the Parkland massacre that are making corporate media heavily invested in the narrative increasingly uncomfortable. As a result several regional news outlets have lashed out at the skeptic, prompting his employer to open an internal investigation of Harrell’s potential “thought crimes.”
The day after the Valentine’s Day shooting, for example, the North Miami police officer pondered in one post,
“What if the cops went into school and shot and kill[ed] some students?! Would they be forthcoming? Lawsuits would help to find out.”
Elsewhere Harrell observes the more-than-subtle psychological warfare being waged on the public through the prevalent use of terms like “active shooter,” to gear individuals toward anticipating an increasingly militarized society.
What Would Fair and Balanced Journalism Have Looked Like?
By James F. Tracy
The Palm Beach Post and South Florida Sun-Sentinel’s overall coverage of the December 2017 TracyvFAU trial looks as if it could have been written by the Defendant University’s “Department of Media Relations.” Post and Sun-Sentinel managements recognize how FAU’s multitude of advertising dollars is a key support in their erroneous and uncritical reportage of complex public events and broader operations. With the trial each outlet skewed its reportage and editorial commentary to heavily favor the school, thereby securing for their client a positive verdict in South Florida’s court of public opinion.
One need look no further than the Post and Sun-Sentinel‘s article titles to gather an overview of the TracyvFAU’s editorial thrust:
-“Trial To Begin for Fired FAU Professor, Conspiracy Theorist James Tracy,” Sun Sentinel, November 27, 2017
-“Ex FAU Professor, Conspiracy Theorist James Tracy, Testifies about Firing in Free Speech Case,” Sun Sentinel, November 30, 2017
-“FAU Professor James Tracy Claims School Fired Him for Sandy Hook Rants,” Palm Beach Post, November 30, 2017
-“Ex-FAU Prof on Trial Tries To Downplay Attack on Sandy Hook Parents,” Palm Beach Post, December 1, 2017
-“FAU Prof Wasn’t Fired Because of Sandy Hook Blog, FAU Official Testifies,” Sun Sentinel,December 4, 2017
-“Christie: Tracy-vs-FAU More about Arrogance Than Free Speech, Insubordination,” PalmBeachPost.com, December 5, 2017
-“FAU Prof James Tracy’s Firing ‘Wasn’t a Surprise’ to Him, University Officials Say,” Sun Sentinel, December 5, 2017
-“What It Was Like in the Class of FAU’s Conspiracy-Spinning Professor,” Palm Beach Post, December 8, 2017
-“Claims against FAU by Sandy Hook Denier Headed To Federal Jury Monday,” Palm Beach Post, December 8, 2017
-“Jury Rules against Fired FAU Prof James Tracy in Free Speech Case,” Sun Sentinel, December 11, 2017
In fact, the papers pulled their reporters from the courtroom entirely when crucial testimony was given by Professor Tracy’s colleagues and fellow union officers giving the lie to the central argument of FAU’s million-dollar defense—that Tracy consciously violated a school policy rigorously adhered to by all other faculty and employees.
The ADL has released a creepy George Orwell 1984-esque video expressing that there is an increase of online hate and how to tackle it. The video shows bubbles that include labeling hate speech such as 9/11 truth, conspiracy, First Amendment, men’s rights and many more. Oh and ironically also the topic of this article – censorship.
The video opens with a woman identified as Brittan Heller, ADL’s Director of the Center for Technology & Society, speaking about online hate and how the ADL and [University of California] Berkeley are going to tackle online hate speech, (a broad definition which hasn’t truly been defined.) Heller goes on to explain that Berkeley and the ADL have been testing artificial intelligence in a lab to help tech giants identify “online hate speech” which presumably is defined by the ADL through the list of topics above in their bubble chart.
The dangerous precedent set for censoring the list above and deeming it hate speech is as follows. Censoring 9/11 truth one would have to ignore the dancing Israelis who said they were there to document the event, a van with a 9/11 mural painted found along with bombs on the George Washington Bridge, as well as the other white Urban Moving System white vans and the documented arrests of Mossad agents. Further, a person would need to completely ignore the insider trading that happened that day as documented by German security firm Convar. And that’s just scratching the surface of questions still no one has yet been able to explain how a building collapses in a controlled demolition matter from a fire like building 7.
In fact, the University Of Alaska recently did a study on just that, finding that WTC 7 did not fall due to fire, contradicting NIST who said the building collapsed from structural damages due to the fire.
Just so the ADL doesn’t call me anti-Semitic, I’ll leave a clear note that I am not blaming one of the other bubbles ADL came up with: “the Jews.” I am simply stating documented facts with questions lingering in response to the nonprofit seeking to censor “9/11 truth.”