• Home
  • Free Speech/First Amendment/Censorship

Video: Bozell: Social Media Censorship ‘One of the Greatest Threats to Free Speech' in U.S. History

This is the most comprehensive report produced by CNS News and details, what may be one of the greatest threats to free speech in American history,” Media Research Center (MRC) President Brent Bozell explains in a video highlighting MRC’s study on social media censorship.


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

The Shocking Soros 'Speech Code Cartel' Memo

Exclusive: Joseph Farah on most 'diabolical attack on free speech in the history of America'

By Joseph Farah

You can’t make this stuff up.

Never, even in my fertile imagination, would I have guessed that we would find a smoking-gun 49-page memo revealing how George Soros operatives, including David Brock, were there at the genesis, the planning stages, with their hands on the ignition key, of the most concerted, well-funded, diabolical attack on free speech in the history of America.

But there it is.

Millions saw it on the DrudgeReport – including, no doubt, President Trump, Vice President Pence and Republican congressional leaders. But most Americans still know nothing of its existence – because it was not reported among the Big Media. They don’t want you to know about it. They would be embarrassed if America found out how they have been used and manipulated – from their focus on “Russian collusion” to other wild conspiracy theories targeting their No. 1 villain, President Trump.

It was nothing short of a plan to turn Google, Facebook and other social media into hyper-partisan Democratic Party activists, promoters, cheerleaders, and off-the-books donors in an effort to turn the country into a one-party state.

And they’re getting away with it, even though the beans have been spilled publicly. That’s partly because, as I have pointed out before, Google-Facebook control the media. They use the media. They manipulate the media. They choose winners and losers among the media. That’s real power that we have never seen before in American life.

The timing of this insidious plot is key. When did it begin? Right after Trump was inaugurated. That’s when the attacks on the independent, alternative media – WND, Breitbart, et al. – began. We’ve been feeling the squeeze ever since – through politically skewed algorithms and speech codes.

Continue Reading

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

Memo Reveals Soros-Funded Social-Media Censorship Plan

Plotted with Google, Facebook to eliminate 'right wing propaganda'

By Art Moore

The recent wave of censorship of conservative voices on the internet by tech giants Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Apple mirrors a plan concocted by a coalition of George Soros-funded, progressive groups to take back power in Washington from President Trump’s administration.

A confidential, 49-page memo for defeating Trump by working with the major social-media platforms to eliminate “right wing propaganda and fake news” was presented in January 2017  by Media Matters founder David Brock at a retreat in Florida with about 100 donors, the Washington Free Beacon reported at the time.

On Monday, the Gateway Pundit blog noted the memo’s relationship with recent moves by Silicon Valley tech giants to “shadow ban” conservative political candidates and pundits and remove content.

The Free Beacon obtained a copy of the memo, “Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action,” by attending the retreat.

The memo spells out a four-year agenda that deployed Media Matters along with American Bridge, Shareblue and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to attack Trump and Republicans. The strategies are impeachment, expanding Media Matters’ mission to combat “government misinformation,” ensuring Democratic control of the Senate in the 2018 midterm elections, filing lawsuits against the Trump administration, monetizing political advocacy, using a “digital attacker” to delegitimize Trump’s presidency and damage Republicans, and partnering with Facebook to combat “fake news.”

Quashing ‘fake news’ with ‘mathematical precision’

The Free Beacon in its January 2017 story said Brock sought to raise $40 million in 2017 for his organizations.

The document claims Media Matters and far-left groups have “access to raw data from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites” so they can “systemically monitor and analyze this unfiltered data.”

Continue Reading

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

Free Speech: The Right To Be A Moron

By Thaddeus G. McCotter


For many, the most arduous aspect of supporting free speech is the principled requirement to defend disagreeable speech; moreover, the degree of difficulty in defending free speech increases in proportion to the detestable nature of the individual or entity uttering said offensive speech.

Yet we must. For to infringe upon the free speech rights of one, however loathsome, is to endanger the free speech rights of all. And, really, who doesn’t like to do a little bitching?

Therefore, let us examine a pundit-class kerfuffle to prove how it is possible and necessary to defend free speech, regardless of how unsavory we deem the speaker.

Recently in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman opined that the optimal way to defeat President Trump was for America

to see every [Trump] tweet, every rally, every word and every reaction so that they can ask themselves: “Is this who I want my kids to see as our president? Are these the people with whom I want to be aligned?” It’s too late to move Trump’s core base on these questions, but I would not give up on his passive supporters.

One of the entities Friedman would give up on is, of course, Fox News. Not surprisingly, one Fox News wag didn’t take this sitting down (though it is what he does all day on television).

Greg Gutfeld, the author of a glorified travel brochure, Lessons from the Land of Pork Scratchings: A Miserable Yank Finds Happiness in the UK (among other impenetrable tracts), disagreed with Friedman’s conclusion; and, alternately, argued such ubiquitous coverage had and would continue to help President Trump:

What a great idea. Because remember what happened the last time the media covered every tweet, every rally, every word in every reaction of Donald Trump? . . . They elected Donald Trump…So telling the media to focus on Trump’s behavior, you are in effect saying “hey, remember how we elected Trump in 2016? Let’s do it again.”

Not in the mood to be contradicted by an “active” Trump supporter, Friedman appeared on CNN and declared Gutfeld a “moron.”

Somewhat evasively (he never refuted the charge), Gutfeld nonetheless fired off a Pershing II of a tweet at Friedman’s host cable station: “Ha [sic] sorry I missed it. I was doing a hit on a network people actually watch!”

Yes, because it is so often messy in practice, sometimes amid the pundit classes’ pillow fights it is easy to miss that we have witnessed a principled exchange of free speech. True, the above exchange is less than courteous. Nevertheless, neither Friedman nor Gutfeld is demanding that his antagonist be silenced, for instance by imploring Twitter Jack to eradicate a tweet or suspend an account (which he is more than happy to do these days, if one is a conservative).

No, what we have is Gutfeld lampooning Friedman’s argument and his host cable station, and Friedman dismissing Gutfeld as a “moron.” We, the public, can determine who is right or wrong; and who we will listen to on what station or social media platform.

And, thus, is free speech practiced and protected.

Lads, a pint, pork scratchings, and a round of applause for you in spite of yourselves!


Photo Credit: Sean Zanni/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images



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

Free Speech Monopoly – The Game Is Rigged

The Internet is today’s town square. The soapboxes are social media.

By Ben Garrison

In early America many cities had ‘town squares’ in which citizens could stand on soapboxes and shout out various messages. Our First Amendment protects such speech.

The Internet is today’s town square. The soapboxes are social media.

The Deep State and the left are intertwined with Silicon Valley. The CIA helped Google and Facebook get started. Why? To make it easier to spy on people. Over time, millions gravitated toward Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Conservative and Libertarian voices became very strong and that alarmed the Deep State. So they began demonetizing conservatives. Then they shadow-banned them. Now they are deleting them outright.

For many years, Alex Jones reached millions with his journalism and rants. His tirades helped wake people up. He yelled at us about the Deep State, including the corrupt security agencies, the Bohemian Grove, the CFR, the Bilderbergs, fluoride in our water, the lies about 9-11, and yes, even Sandy Hook. The latter had many anomalies that should be questioned. Alex brought all of this up and more before anyone else had a inkling about what was really going on with such matters. He was routinely dismissed as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ by the establishment. However, much of what he has been saying over the years is now acknowledged as self-evident. The legacy media, the Deep State, and Silicon Valley could not stomach the fact that he was informing and influencing minds and elections. They all got together and confiscated his soapbox. Their lame excuse? They claimed he was a purveyor of ‘hate speech.’

Having previously endured years of hate speech aimed toward me, I know what it is and what it isn’t. To me, it’s libel, defamation and death threats. Alex Jones has never engaged in hate speech. Questioning climate change is not hate speech. Jones is not a racist, a bigot or any of the other ‘phobic’ names the left enjoy pinning on ideological opponents. ‘Hate speech’ sounds alarming and terrible, but it’s also vague. Who gets to decide what it is?

Continue Reading

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

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)