• Home
  • Free Speech/First Amendment/Censorship

Audio: Exclusive–Twitter Targets Gavin McInnes on Solution: ‘Trump Has to Step Up’

Conservative commentator Gavin Mcinnes appeared on Breitbart News Saturday this week to discuss his recent Twitter suspension and why it’s up to President Trump to stop social media censorship.

Appearing alongside Breitbart News Editor Amanda House, conservative commentator and CRTV host Gavin McInnes discusses his recent suspension from Twitter and the banning of his pro-Western mens group, The Proud Boys. During the interview, McInnes warned that the banning of Alex Jones was just the beginning of mass consevative censorship and soon websites like Breitbart and Fox News would also have to worry about being censored online.





  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Liberal Professor Warns Censorship of Infowars Will Backfire on the Left

Says “hate speech” is a political tool to shut down dissent

By Paul Joseph Watson

Professor Erik Nielson warns in a New York Times op-ed that the kind of censorship that saw Infowars banned from most major social media platforms this week will eventually backfire on the left.

In an article entitled If We Silence Hate Speech, Will We Silence Resistence?, Nielson, who is an associate professor of liberal arts at the University of Richmond, writes that “mounting pressure from the political left to censor hateful speech may have unintended consequences.”

Cautioning that leftists should be “wary” of applauding the likes of Apple, Facebook and YouTube banning Alex Jones, Nielson writes, “If we become overzealous in our efforts to limit so-called hate speech, we run the risk of setting a trap for the very people we’re trying to defend.”

The professor cites inflammatory rhetoric used by black leaders after the civil rights era which led to them being put under surveillance and subjected to harassment by the FBI under the justification of them being labeled “hate groups”.

He also cites the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement, which “federal lawmakers have increasingly tried to shut the movement down by accusing it of hate speech,” in addition to Black Lives Matter, which some have attempted to label a hate group by making the target of their anger, police officers, a protected class.

He also makes the point that the 2017 Women’s March was accused of engaging in “hate” because it had links to anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

“If we allowed these voices to be silenced on grounds that they promote hate, we’d find ourselves scrambling to defend the radical poets, musicians, filmmakers and other artists who have pushed the boundaries of expression into what could arguably amount to hate speech, but who have done so from the vanguard of social and political protest,” writes Nielson.

He also points to the hypocrisy of Spotify reversing its decision to “stop promoting artists who engage in hateful speech or conduct,” but then banning Alex Jones for that very reason.

“Within weeks, Spotify reversed course, noting that its policy was “vague.” But by silencing Mr. Jones on its platform, it’s not exactly clear where Spotify is drawing the line.

And that’s the inherent danger in attempting to limit something like hate. It can be so broadly defined that our efforts to counteract it will be broad, too.

If that happens, we risk silencing the voices and perspectives we can least afford to lose. That’s not a triumph over hate. That’s falling victim to it.”

Nielson’s argument will resonate with real liberals, but given that much of the left has abandoned liberal principles and aggressively supported censorship, so long as it’s directed against their political adversaries, don’t expect the blue check mark brigade on Twitter to embrace his position.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Zero Transparency: 6 Questions that Tech Giants Refuse to Answer About the InfoWars Ban

Even though the internet is aflame with controversy over the coordinated purge of Alex Jones and InfoWars from Facebook, YouTube, Spotify, and  Apple, there is no real transparency over their decision and the process by which it was made.

Alex Jones and InfoWars have been top Twitter trends for hours, and even some left-wing journalists like Michael Tracey are decrying Silicon Valley’s Masters of the Universe appointing themselves the arbiters of free speech on the web.

But Apple, Facebook, Spotify, and YouTube have offered, at most, only copy and paste explanations for why they banned InfoWars content from their platforms — or why, after months of pressure from the Democrats and CNN, they all came to the same decision on the same day. Questions about transparency have a much broader scope that just the case of InfoWars and Alex Jones. Beyond the banning of other individuals such as Tommy Robinson, the same questions apply to a whole host of actions by the Masters of the Universe, including partnering with foreign governments to shut down accounts, shadowbanning users to limit the scope of their engagement, and mass user purges.

Breitbart News sent the following questions to Facebook, YouTube, Spotify, and Apple earlier today, and have yet to receive a real answer for most of them. Apple and YouTube chose to provide the same canned statement they provided to all other media outlets who contacted them, while Facebook and Spotify ignored our request entirely.


1) What content specifically from InfoWars/Alex Jones was found to be”hate speech” and otherwise rule breaking?

InfoWars editor-at-large Paul Joseph Watson confirmed to Breitbart News that none of the tech giants that targeted InfoWars and Alex Jones over the past 24 hours pointed to specific content that violated their terms of service.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Bombshell New Report Reveals How Tech Giants Are Systematically Destroying The First Amendment

(Natural News) On Monday, Natural News founder/editor Mike Adams, in conjunction with Infowars, released a new report that outlines in stunning detail how the tech media giants — think Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter especially — are working in tandem to deny tens of millions of Americans access to news and information the social media corporations find politically objectionable.

Not only that, Adams argues, the systematic censoring of certain political viewpoints — think conservative viewpoints, in particular — is a blatant denial of their rights to exist in today’s increasingly Internet-connected world.

Called “The Censorship Master Plan Decoded,” or also known as simply “The Adams Report,” the paper spells out the cost to society of so much censorship (which, full disclosure, the social media giants deny), and the inherent damage to our political, social, and cultural discussions as a result of suppressing views that don’t align with the groupthink of the Left.

What’s more, the report is revolutionary in that it is the first of its kind: Thus far, no one else has put together such a “compendium” of a data and facts demonstrating clearly that not only is censorship of conservative content by the social media giants taking place, it is designed to have a negative impact on conservative politics moving forward. (Related: Two of the world’s most evil people – Bill Gates and George Soros – behind Facebook’s news censorship agenda.)

Adams notes in the report:

Today’s attacks on the First Amendment are being carried out by a “triple threat” tag-team of institutions:

#1) Tech giants – Their role is to carry out the mechanics of censorship, shadow banning, “doubt interruptions” and other techniques described in this report.

#2) Establishment media – Tasked with promoting the lynch mob mentality of hysteria and hatred which is translated into widespread calls for silencing whatever voices they don’t like: CNN’s insistent demand for InfoWars to be deplatformed from Facebook, for example.

#3) Third party fact-checkers and moderators – These groups, such as the SPLC, Politifact, etc., are given the task of flagging all undesirable political speech (or even speech about natural health, as you’ll see below) as “hate speech,” creating the justification for tech giants to ban or deplatform such accounts without having to accept internal organizational responsibility for discriminating against selected targeted.

The objective is to eliminate all opposition speech

He states clearly and emphatically that this triple threat was consciously constructed for the express purpose of stifling news and views that do not comport with liberalism and, increasingly, authoritarian Marxism.

What’s ironic to note, when it comes to the Left’s so-called “fact checkers,” these social media platforms are utilizing handpicked services that share the same ideology so that they can ‘credibly’ claim that the censorship of “right-wing” material is in the public’s best interests. They are, in short, deciding what Americans can and cannot be exposed to when it comes to information. 

“Thus, we are now faced with a kind of perfect storm in America — a ‘free speech apocalypse’ — where all the institutions that once called for protections of the freedom of expression are now actively conspiring to exterminate it. This coordinated attack on free speech is now taking place in plain view. The agenda is not hidden, nor is it even debatable that this is taking place,” Adams writes.

The goal is sinister: The complete abolition of all but Left-wing groupthink speech, and the effort to do so is being accelerated ahead of the 2018 midterm elections (which Democrats have been claiming will result in a “blue wave” takeover of the House and Senate).

Adams notes this effort — in addition to denying Americans their right to exist on platforms that have grown so large as to be pervasive and vital to society — is also a form of election interference (and without any Russian assistance).

Read the compelling, important report by clicking here.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

NYT- Op-Ed Calls For The Complete Silencing of All Conservatives FOREVER

Because Liberals Can't Win When Public Debate Is Tolerated

By Ethan Huff

Should free speech be limited or even silenced whenever the viewpoints being expressed are deemed inadequate, uninformed, or lacking in merit by “highly educated” college professors? The answer is yes, according to Bryan W. Van Norden, a professor of philosophy at Wuhan University in China, as well as Yale-NUS College and Vassar College.

In a recent op-ed he wrote for The New York Times, Norden attempts to make the case that freedom of speech should end where ignorance begins – or at least his private interpretation as to what constitutes ignorance. In this case, Norden sees conservative viewpoints as being ignorant, and wants conservatives not to have a voice when it comes to influencing public opinion.

In Norden’s view, only people like himself – the “properly educated,” as he puts it – have the capacity to mull through conflicting information and determine what’s true and what’s false. Because of this, conservatives who present information that he believes is false shouldn’t be allowed to do so any longer because there are apparently too many “improperly” educated people in the world that might fall for it.

Keep in mind that Norden’s definition of false information is simply information with which he disagrees. Illustrating this are two examples of “false” information that he presents in his article: The idea that the infamous photo of the crying illegal alien girl was staged, and the belief that the official story about what took place during the Sandy Hook school shooting might not be entirely true.

Sponsored solution from the Health Ranger Store: The Big Berkey water filter removes almost 100% of all contaminants using only the power of gravity (no electricity needed, works completely off-grid). Widely consider the ultimate "survival" water filter, the Big Berkey is made of stainless steel and has been laboratory verified for high-efficiency removal of heavy metals by CWC Labs, with tests personally conducted by Mike Adams. Explore more here.


As we recently reported, the TIME cover photo of the crying alien girl was, indeed, fake – something that even TIME itself now admits. And as far as Sandy Hook goes, there remains a whole host of unanswered questions about this strange incident that any rational, non-biased person has no choice but to admit are completely valid.

Liberals like Norden think they’re the only people on earth enlightened enough to understand facts and truth

But Norden doesn’t acknowledge any of this. In his opinion, the little girl in the pink jacket is, in fact, a migrant who was separated from her parents by the meanie Trump administration. And Sandy Hook happened exactly the way the government says it did – even the parts that don’t make a lick of logical sense.

It’s the epitome of elitist patronizing, illustrating just how high-minded liberals like Norden are when it comes to matters of fact and truth. In their deluded minds, people like Norden believe that their own personal truths – the way they see the world – is the ultimate truth, always. And anyone who dares to disagree by presenting an alternative argument is just some ignorant dolt spreading misinformation.

But it doesn’t work, as revealed by The Daily Caller‘s Ben Shapiro. In a well-crafted critique of Norden’s self-aggrandizing manifesto that basically calls for censorship of conservative voices, Shapiro reveals many of Norden’s grossly illogical positions, including his belief that there’s no single way to think about something rationally.

This is a truly ironic position for Norden to take, since he apparently believes that he and other people just like him hold a corner on truth. It’s simply the latest tactic of Ivory Tower lunatics like Norden who recognize that their influence on society is starting to wane, which is why they’re increasingly lashing out at the opposing viewpoints that are rapidly gaining ground in their place.

“In the end, Norden isn’t making an intellectual case for general societal disapproval of a particular position,” concludes Shapiro. “He’s expressing a primal frustration with the fact that his arguments aren’t winning. And thus he wants to change the rules of the game …”

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: How Does One Make The List of Hate Groups/Individuals Put Out By The Southern Poverty Law Center? (SPLC)

BNI and several of my fellow anti-Islam bloggers have been on this far left slander list for years. If you are on the list, you are automatically considered a “RacistHaterBigotIslamophobe.”



The SPLC has become the US hate monitor and is the basis for censorship by Twitter, Face Book, Google, and You Tube. The fact that SPLC has been discredited by the FBI is ignored. Anti-Islam groups comprise one of the largest sections of the list but virulent Jew/Christian-hating groups like CAIR are never included on the list as you can see below.


The purpose of the SPLC is to censor all those who have different political ideas. They oppose free speech as hate speech. They reject fact based reasoning and critical thought. The Jewish Federation is a partner with these totalitarians. They are joined by Christian groups that are apologists for Islam.



Related Video:





  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Justice Thomas: America Now in Conflict Between Religious Liberty and Court's Decree on Gay Marriage

By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - In his dissenting opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, Justice Clarence Thomas predicted that the court’s declaration that same-sex marriage is a right would ultimately lead to conflict between that purported right and religious liberty.

In his concurring opinion today in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Thomas concludes: “This case proves that the conflict has already emerged.”

In Obergefell, decided by a 5-4 vote in 2015, the Supreme Court declared that the 14th Amendment creates a right for people of the same sex to marry one another.

“The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution, but with the principles upon which our Nation was built,” Thomas wrote in his dissent in Obergefell. “Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not enti­tlement to government benefits. The Framers created our Constitution to preserve that understanding of liberty.

“Yet the majority invokes our Constitution in the name of a ‘liberty’ that the Framers would not have recognized, to the detriment of the liberty they sought to protect,” Thomas continued. “Along the way, it rejects the idea—captured in our Declaration of Independence—that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the government. This distor­tion of our Constitution not only ignores the text, it inverts the relationship between the individual and the state in our Republic. I cannot agree with it.”

In his Obergefell dissent, Thomas went on to warn:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

“The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability,” wrote Thomas.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)