US President Donald Trump has spoken out about censorship against conservatives on social media, saying it is a “very dangerous thing” and calling for everyone to be allowed to participate in the online conversation.
“Social media is totally discriminating against Republican/conservative voices. Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump administration, we won’t let that happen. They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others,” Trump wrote.
Social Media is totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices. Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won’t let that happen. They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others…….
Censorship is as censorship does. Multi-billion dollar video streaming company Netflix will not carry a documentary film, “My Life’s Journey Through Music,” highlighting controversial Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s musical virtuosity.
The film is produced by Minister’s Music Inc., and “features many award winning musical icons and legends from several different genres,” according to the company’s promotional site for the project available here.
Mainstream coverage of the present Netflix ban is devoid of reference to Farrakhan’s musicianship. The promo below indicates a polished production and numerous high-profile black musicians featured alongside Farrakhan throughout the film.
Needless to say Farrakhan is deemed controversial by major media and holds unconventional views on a variety of topics, including his condemnation of homosexuality and the “Satanic Jew,” the latter of which caused Twitter to temporarily censor him. Netflix announced the film would be available in August but has now pulled it, citing “an internal miscommunication.”
Netflix will not stream a documentary about Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, the company said in a statement on Tuesday.
The documentary, titled “My Life’s Journey Through Music,” was first reported to be on the list of films coming to the streaming service in August, with Farrakhan tweeting about the documentary’s addition to the service. But Netflix says this will not be the case, blaming an error for the film being included on the list.
“Due to an internal miscommunication, it appeared to be scheduled for release on Netflix, but it is not,” said a company spokesperson. “We apologize for any confusion this has caused.”
The “Land of the Free, Home of the Brave” has reached a new nadir under corporate police state control. Walmart is among the entities behind a program to equip public schools with five gallon capacity “safety” or “lockdown” buckets for readiness in the event the facility’s inhabitants undergo martial law for an extended period of time. Taking a page from “preppers” often lampooned in major media, the vessels will be stocked with first aid supplies and foodstuffs, and can even be used as latrines.
The idea of “shelter in place buckets” was floated shortly after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland Florida on February 14, 2018, as the video below suggests.
Louisiana’s WAFB carries the syndicated story attributed to CNN:
With classroom shootings on the minds of many, one Michigan high school is trying to make their students feel safer.
Heidi Hummel and her classmates are gearing up for their senior year at Clio High School, but back-to-school prep has taken a more somber tone after recent school shootings.
This year at Clio, every classroom will have what’s called a “safety bucket.”
“We are unloading them and using them in the event, if we ever needed them, for a lock down,” Hummel said. “And we can have them for food and supplies if we were ever locked down for a long time.”
The buckets will go into every classroom in the school district. Assistant Principal Kevin Ayre said the school needs the public’s help to fill the buckets with potentially life-saving supplies.
“They’re going to be filled with gauze, bandages, water – you know, necessities in the situation where we have to be in a long-term lockdown,” Ayre said.
Walmart donated at least 144 of the buckets, and students and faculty said they’re great because in the case of an emergency they could use them as bathrooms as well.
Editor’s Note: California may set the tone for a national conversation and perhaps even set of laws addressing what the state’s lawmakers deem “false information … spread online.” Since political motivation and ideology often underly what one deems “fake news” this proposed move should be especially concerning for those who truly cherish free thought and expression. As the article below suggests, Facebook’s recent nod to corporate media outlets as an antithesis to “fake news” has demonstrated how such an effort is likely to be instituted in California and elsewhere. The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that the law is dangerous because it places the governing body in a position to determine what is true and false.
The proposed speech legislation was introduced by California State Senator Richard Pan, a practicing pediatrician and the principal lawmaker behind SB277, the state’s mandatory vaccination law. A voter-driven campaign in 2015 to have Pan ousted from office was not successful.
California is considering creating a “fake news” advisory group in order to monitor information posted and spread on social media.
Senate Bill 1424 would require the California Attorney General to create the advisory committee by April 1, 2019. It would need to consist of at least one person from the Department of Justice, representatives from social media providers, civil liberties advocates, and First Amendment scholars.
The advisory group would be required to study how false information is spread online and come up with a plan for social media platforms to fix the problem. The Attorney General would then need to present that plan to the Legislature by December 31, 2019. The group would also need to come up with criteria establishing what is “fake news” versus what is inflammatory or one-sided.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposes the bill, calling it “flawed” and “misguided.” The group argues the measure would make the government and advisory group responsible for deciding what is true or false. It also points out the First Amendment prevents content-based restrictions, even if the statements of “admittedly false.”
A recent study by Massachusetts-based MindEdge Learning was conducted with 1,000 young adults, ages 18 to 31-years-old. According to MindEdge’s nine-question survey, 52 percent of the respondents incorrectly answered at least four questions and received a failing grade. The number of young adults who could detect false information on the internet went down by all of the group’s measures. Only 19 percent of the college students and grads scored an “A” by getting eight or nine questions correct. That number is down from 24 percent in last year’s survey.
Facebook recently did away with its “Trending News” section – calling it outdated and unpopular. That section was criticized in the past after reports came out claiming the human editors were biased against conservatives. After Facebook fired those editors, the algorithms it replaced them with couldn’t always distinguish real news from fake.
After the 2016 election, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg denied that fake news spread on the social site he oversees influenced the outcome- calling the idea “crazy.”
A previous bill, AB 155, would have required schools to teach students the difference between “fake news” and “real news.” It died in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
The current bill SB 1424 was authored by Senator Dr. Richard Pan. It passed the Senate on May 30, 2018 by a vote of 25-11. It will be heard by the Assembly Arts, Entertainment, Sports, tourism, and Internet Media Committee on Tuesday.
“SPLC” may not stand for Sneaky Propaganda and Libel Center, but more and more Americans think it should. This is especially true after the organization had to pay a large settlement to an Islamic reformer it falsely labeled an “anti-Muslim extremist,” a victory that has inspired other targeted entities to also consider suing the SPLC.The far left-wing SPLC, or Southern Poverty Law Center, has long played a real-life cross between Santa Claus and Stalin, making a list of who’s naughty or nice and then managing to “gift” those it deems “haters” with stigmatization. Yet the misnamed organization — it has little to do with poverty or law, neither experiencing nor alleviating the former and violating the latter’s spirit — makes a habit of targeting those whose only trespass is, well, disagreeing with the SPLC. I ought to know: I myself was placed on its “HateWatch” page about a decade ago (more on that later).
The problem is that the SPLC has become the media go-to organization for who or what should be considered a “hater,” and being thus labeled can mean censorship by social media; with such media being today’s public square, this can deny the SPLC’s victims (almost always conservatives) a voice.
But one of these victims, finally, has gotten some justice. As National Reviewreported Monday, the SPLC “has reached a settlement with liberal Islamic reformer Maajid Nawaz and his organization, the Quilliam Foundation, for wrongly including them on its now-defunct list of ‘anti-Muslim extremists.’”
The SPLC will pay Nawaz and Quilliam $3.375 million, the “result of a lawsuit Nawaz filed in April over his inclusion on the SPLC’s ‘Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists,’” National Review further informed.
Editor’s Note: This brief analysis from Russia’s RT succinctly illustrates the extent to which US corporate news media now function as political disinformation outlets. “Disinformation” is defined as “false information spread deliberately to deceive.” Under common journalistic practice an editor’s attempts to persuade her readership on a certain stance is presented as an “editorial.”
Now, however, in their barely-concealed contempt for Donald Trump’s presidency, even the New York Times, which promotes itself as a bastion of sober journalistic objectivity, knowingly partakes in mispresenting information for an intended effect.
Regardless of one’s take on Trump’s political leadership, the notion that he simply uses the “fake news” label to denote news stories and media he personally dislikes is simply self-serving and disingenuous. The analysis below is but one example of how the hyper-politicized US news media undermine their own credibility.
Mainstream US media was quick to condemn the president’s remarks as bigotry and racism, and a dehumanization technique aimed at any and all immigrants from Latin America who enter the US illegally across the border with Mexico.
Trump “lashed out at undocumented immigrants,” the The New York Times reported:
CNN commentator Keith Boykin argued Trump’s comments were “the same dehumanization tactic used by slave traders and slave owners to justify the oppression of black people for hundreds of years.”
Trump referring to human beings as "animals" is the same dehumanization tactic used by slave traders and slave owners to justify the oppression of black people for hundreds of years. https://t.co/6LY6XJwFH4
The Huffington Post’s catchy headline read: “Trump Refers To Immigrants As ‘Animals.’ Again.” The New York Times meanwhile delicately highlighted that Trump was referring to just “some” of the immigrants, not all of them.
There is just one tiny problem with the story: it’s ‘fake news’, as Trump himself would probably call it.
If one watches the actual video of the exchange from Wednesday’s roundtable – rather than the selectively truncated segments – it becomes clear Trump was referring to the notorious MS-13, or Mara Salvatrucha, gang members rather than Latin Americans or illegal immigrants in general. A description of the exchange on C-SPAN, the cable channel that carries live political broadcasts, clearly says Trump was referring to “MS-13 gang members.”
The hour-long portion of the event open to the press was live-streamed on YouTube by the White House, and the relevant exchange is available to anyone who wishes to hear for themselves (at 24:18).
This is not the first time Trump has referred to Mara Salvatrucha members as “animals,” either. He used the term in a June 2017 speech about illegal immigration in Long Island, New York. Another notable instance was the July 2017 rally in Youngstown, Ohio.
MS-13 originated in California during the 1980s, among refugees fleeing the civil war in El Salvador, in which the Reagan administration backed the right-wing government. The gang, known for its viciousness, has since spread throughout the US and even Canada, and is reportedly allied with Mexican drug cartels.
Reviving McCarthyism & nurturing Orwellian society
Editor’s Note: In this thorough and articulate analysis the author examines the very real dangers posed by Western governments’ domestic efforts to circumvent the vital exchange of information and ideas afforded through citizen-fueled alternative media. In late 2016 MemoryHoleBlog was among the sites listed by the shadowy ProporNot organization’s as a “Russian agent” that “echoes Russian propaganda.”
Although MHB doesn’t routinely take editorial directions from the Kremlin, we do reserve our right to pass along important observations as we see fit and in accord with the First Amendment. The fact that the US government and her corporate sponsors fund terrorists to loot and destroy countries like Syria while at the same time they fabricate an alternate reality for the American people to mask such crimes is perhaps the most poignant sign of their contempt for anything bearing even a mild resemblance to the free speech provisions ensconced in the Constitution.
The new or expanded Global Engagement Center under the State Department seems to be morphing into what one might someday recognize as Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth.”
Recent events over past months have caused many to suspect the reliability of news and information provided to us, often by our own governments. Alternative news sources threaten to disrupt the message or narrative crafted by governments and large organizations. The US Global Engagement Center is mobilizing in response to counter alternative media, conflicting perspectives and foreign influence such as ‘Russian Propaganda.’
The rush to judgement, complete failure to follow international norms, and subsequent actions in response to both the alleged poisoning of Sergey and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury in the UK and the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria leaves many questions unanswered. That narratives of government officials and mainstream media (MSM) are in lockstep despite the lack of any real evidence makes one suspicious of the ultimate objectives. Whatever these objectives may be, they certainly appear misplaced and bring increased international tension. Both these instances have the appearance of ‘false flag’ operations.
However, despite the lack of a thorough investigation, British Prime Minister May was quick to state the Skripals were poisoned with a nerve agent, Novichok, and claimed it was “highly likely” that it was the Russian government behind the attack. Both the UK and Russia are signatories of the international Chemical Weapons Convention. There are set procedures to be followed in the event of the suspected use of chemical weapons, such as Novichok, which include notification of the OPCW, cooperation of state parties and the instigation of a fact-finding investigation. These procedures were not followed and, in fact, Russia has yet to be included in the investigation or even provided samples.
There seems to be a veil of secrecy surrounding so many aspects of the entire incident. Despite the lack of evidence and the fragmentation of the initial storyline, the Skripal poisoning served certain interests by diverting attention away from the UK government and toward Russia. The subsequent mass expulsions of Russian diplomats from the UK, US and EU countries caused the further deterioration of international relations. Throughout this period, MSM toed the party line and lately it appears to have gone silent.
Closely following the Skripals’ poisoning, surprise-surprise, the famed White Helmets released a video of an alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria. Once again, despite no evidence and prior to the arrival of OPCW inspectors, the US, UK, and France launched airstrikes against Syria, targeting supposed chemical weapons facilities. There has yet to be any indication that a chemical weapons attack actually took place. Local citizens and doctors have testified recently that there was no chemical attack and that the incident was staged. Once again, MSM fails to cover the inconsistencies of the story which call in to serious question the actual occurrence of the attack.