By Ethan Huff
NaturalNews.com

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 …”

Tommy Robinson was sentenced to a year in prison today. There is a UK publication ban on this story, but Canada's Ezra Levant and TheRebel.media can give you a full account of what happened.

By Selwyn Duke
TheNewAmerican.com

In threatening to deny White House access to news organs peddling “fake news,” President Trump has been accused of launching a full-court press against the press. But, ironically, the notion that such an action constitutes an attack on media freedom is itself an example of fake news.

The Daily Mail reports on the story:

President Donald Trump suggested Wednesday that he might revoke White House credentials for some journalists, following the publication of a survey that showed a dramatic leftward tilt in television news coverage about him.

The Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group, tracked the evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC for the first four months of this year and found more than 1,600 ‘explicitly positive and negative’ statements about the president.

The group determined that nine out of 10 of those broadcast statements were negative. It did not include CNN and MSNBC in its research.

Trump vented, saying: “The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?”

Interestingly, the Mail did not fail to prove Trump’s point, writing in its headline that the president’s proposal was the “latest attack on [a] free press.” This itself is fake news.

The culture war is first and foremost a war of words - and the left is winning. The consequences can be seen everywhere: in politics, in education, in media. In this video, Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show, explains why we should not cede another syllable.

Project Veritas has released undercover footage of Twitter Engineers and employees admitting that Twitter employees view all of your private messages on their servers and analyze it to create a “virtual profile” of you which they sell to advertisers.

The footage features four current Twitter software engineers–Conrado Miranda, Clay Haynes, Pranay Singh, and Mihai Alexandru Florea.

Haynes, who was featured in part one of the Twitter exposé, admitted in a January 6, 2018 meeting that Twitter has hired hundreds employees with the express purpose of looking at these “dick pics,” stating:

    “There’s teams dedicated to it. I mean, we’re talking, we’re talking three or four… at least, three or four hundred people… Yes, they’re paid to look at dick pics.”

A Project Veritas undercover investigation has revealed a senior network security engineer at Twitter suggesting that his company turns over the private communications and deleted tweets of President Donald Trump to the Department of Justice. If true, it is yet unknown whether Twitter is voluntarily disclosing this sensitive information or acting under a court order. Twitter is currently in the midst of defending itself from left-leaning criticism that President Trump hasn’t been removed from the enormous media platform for violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service.

Mr. O’Keefe has just completed a book about this series entitled "AMERICAN PRAVDA: My fight for Truth in the Era of Fake News." The book will be released by St. Martin’s Press on January 16, 2018.

In what represents a chokeslam of an exposé, Project Veritas has released undercover video of Twitter engineers admitting that they deliberately censor conservative opinions and are implementing a way of relegating “shitty people” so their content is shadow banned.

In the video, current and former Twitter employees confirm virtually everything that conservatives have long suspected about the left-wing company silencing people on the right.

Key quotes include;

Olinda Hassan, Policy Manager for Twitter Trust and Safety, admits that Twitter is implementing software algorithms that down rank conservatives so “shitty people to not show up” on people’s timelines.

“The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting and no one sees their content,” says former Twitter software engineer Abhinov Vadrevu. “So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it.”

Parnay Singh, Twitter Direct Messaging Engineer, reveals that the company’s machine learning algorithms are programmed with “five thousand keywords to describe a redneck,” which include words like Trump, America, as well as images of the U.S. flag, guns and Christian crosses and these terms are used to delete “bot” accounts as well as down rank conservatives.

Singh also revealed that the U.S. government routinely pressures Twitter to take down Julian Assange’s account and that this is the reason he isn’t verified Singh also says that governments ask Twitter to remove accounts belonging to other public figures because they don’t like their political views.

Former Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Norai admits that Twitter employees have the power to ban accounts if they merely disagree with someone’s political views, remarking, “Yeah, if they said this is: ‘Pro-Trump’ I don’t want it because it offends me, this, that. And I say I banned this whole thing, and it goes over here and they are like, ‘Oh you know what? I don’t like it too. You know what? Mo’s right, let’s go, let’s carry on, what’s next?”

The video represents the biggest tech/censorship story in years yet will attract little or no mainstream media coverage.

However, it will lead to an increase in calls from the right for Twitter to be regulated as a public utility to ensure that free speech rights are protected given how social media companies like Twitter, Facebook and Google have basically become monopolies.

Editor's Note: You bet it has! This lobby is arguably the most powerful foreign agent operating in our country, so powerful in its ability to control members of Congress that it is exempted from having to register as a foreign agent.  Same with the Jewish organizations the ADL (Anti Defamation League) and SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) both foreign agents for Israel's interests not required to register as such.

Paul Craig Roberts

The Israel Lobby has shown its power over Americans’ perceptions and ability to exercise free speech via its influence in media, entertainment and ability to block university tenure appointments, such as those of Norman Finkelstein and Steven Salaita. Indeed, the power of the Israel Lobby is today so widely recognized and feared that editors, producers, and tenure committees anticipate the lobby’s objections in advance and avoid writers, subjects, and professors judged unacceptable to the lobby.

The latest example is The American Conservative’s firing of former CIA officer Philip Giraldi.
Giraldi wrote an article for the Unz Review about Israel’s influence over American foreign policy in the Middle East. The article didn’t say anything that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz hadn’t said already. The editor of The American Conservative, where Giraldi had been a contributor for a decade and a half, was terrified that the magazine was associated with a critic of Israel and quickly terminated the relationship. Such abject cowardice as the editor of The American Conservative showed is a true measure of the power of the Israel Lobby.

Many seasoned experts believe that without the influence of the Israel Lobby, particularly as exerted by the Jewish Neoconservatives, the United States would not have been at war in the Middle East and North Africa for the last 16 years. These wars have done nothing for the US but harm, and they have cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and caused extensive death and destruction in seven countries and a massive refugee flow into Europe.

For a superpower such as the United States not to be in control of its own foreign policy is a serious matter. Giraldi is correct and patriotic to raise this concern. Giraldi makes sensible recommendations for correcting Washington’s lack of control over its own policy. But instead of analysis and debate of Giraldi’s proposals, the result is Giraldi’s punishment by an editor of a conservative publication anticipating the Israel Lobby’s wishes.

Americans should think about the fact that Israel is the only country on earth that it is impermissible to criticize. Anyone who criticizes Israeli policy, especially toward the Palestinians, or remarks on Israel’s influence, is branded an “anti-semite.” Even mild critics who are trying to steer Israel away from making mistakes, such as former President Jimmy Carter, are branded “anti-semites.”

The Israel Lobby’s purpose in labeling a critic an “anti-semite” is to discredit the criticism as an expression of dislike or hatred of Jews. In other words, the criticism is presented as merely an expression of the person’s aversion to Jewishness. A persistent critic is likely to be charged with trying to incite a new holocaust.

It is possible to criticize the policy of Germany, France, Spain, UK, Italy, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, China, Iran, the US, indeed, every other country without being called anti-German, Anti-French, Anti-British, Anti-American, etc., although US policy in the Middle East is so closely aligned with Israel’s that the Israel Lobby regards critics of US Middle East policy as hostile to Israel. Despite the failures of US policy, it is getting more and more difficult to criticize it without the risk of being branded “unpatriotic,” and possibly even a “Muslim sympathizer” and “anti-semite.”

The power of the Israel Lobby is seen in many places. For example, the US Congress demands that RT, a news service, register as a Russian agent, but AIPAC, before whom every year the US Congress pays its homage and submission, does not have to register as an Israeli agent.

The many anomalies in the Israel Lobby’s power pass unremarked. For example, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) defines criticism of Israeli policies as defamation and brands critics “anti-semites.” In other words, the ADL itself is set up in the business of defamation or name-calling. The incongruity of an organization created to oppose defamation engaging in defamation as its sole purpose passes unremarked.

Israel is very proud of its power over the United States. Israeli political leaders have a history of bragging about their power over America. But if an American complains about it, he is a Jew-hater. The only safe way for an American to call attention to the power Israel has over the US is to brag about it. It is OK to acknowledge Israel’s power if you put it in a good light, but not if you complain about it.

So, let me put it this way: Israel’s unique ability to discredit all criticism of its policies as a mere expression of anti-Jewish sentiment is the greatest public relations success in the history of PR. The stupidity of the goy is easily overcome by the more capable Jew. Hats off to Israel for outwitting the dumbshit Americans and taking over their foreign policy. Perhaps Israel should take over US domestic policy as well. Or have they already? It has been 30 years since the Federal Reserve has had a non-Jewish Chairman, and for the past three years Stanley Fischer, the former chairman of the Central Bank of Israel, has been Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Since the Clinton regime, the Treasury Secretaries have been predominately Jewish. We can say that their financial talent makes them natural candidates for these positions, but it is disingenuous to deny the influence of this small minority in American life. This influence becomes a problem when it is used to silence free speech.

Here is Giraldi:

By Michael S. Rozeff
LewRockwell.com

Eleven years ago, this essay argued against hate-crime laws. One argument read “People can eventually be accused of hate crimes when they use hateful speech. Hate crimes laws are a seed that can sprout in new directions.” This has now come to pass, I am sorry to say. This week, the Congress passed S. J. Res. 49, and President Trump signed it, making it part of the U.S. legal code.

The law rejects “White nationalists, White supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups…” But why? Because of their ideas? Because of their expression of these ideas? No government that stands for freedom and free speech, whose charge is to protect rights, should be singling out specific groups by name and by law declaring them as outlaws or threats because of their philosophies. If they have committed a crime, such as defamation of character or incitement to riot or riot itself, then charge them and try them. But American government has no legitimate authority to single out some of its citizens in this way. This, furthermore, is an exceedingly bad precedent. Who’s next?

The resolution is too specific, but it’s also dangerously vague. The term “other hate groups” has no known definition. Suppose that this term is defined by a group like the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC currently names 917 groups as hate groups (see here for a list). Their criteria are not restricted to violent actions. They comprise SPEECH. They say “All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” They are very clear about this: “Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”

This Congressional resolution is a declaration that certain kinds of groups, some named but many, many others open to inclusion, are to be attacked by the U.S. government. The law urges “the President and the President’s Cabinet to use all available resources to address the threats posed by those groups.” The term “threats” in the first paragraph is vague, dangerously vague. However, the very next paragraph singles out free speech actions when “hundreds of torch-bearing White nationalists, White supremacists, Klansmen, and neo-Nazis chanted racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant slogans…” The same sentence joins this with violent actions “…and violently engaged with counter-demonstrators on and around the grounds of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville…”

This law regards free speech as a threat, linking it to violence, painting them with one brush. There can be no justice that can stem from such a completely sloppy and inexcusably amateurish legal treatment. This linkage is made clear in paragraph seven with this language: “…communities everywhere are concerned about the growing and open display of hate and violence being perpetrated by those groups…” There is no distinction made here between the “open display of hate” and “violence being perpetrated”. As I predicted 11 years ago in arguing against hate crime laws, hate speech is being identified with hate crime.

I am just as uncomfortable with the notion of defining and singling out “hate speech” as some sort of new danger or threat or harmful activity or crime, to be dealt with by government or courts of law as I was 11 years ago with the idea of “hate crime”. The standard categories of crime are quite enough without adding to them a government laundry list of prejudices and aversions that everyone is not supposed to express or feel, under penalty of government law.

Judge Napolitano's Chambers: Judge Andrew Napolitano explains why hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.