Posts Tagged ‘banning’

book-burn

 

Joe Giambrone

 

I’m now inclined to side with Jimmy Dore, who sided with Donald Trump over the question of Twitter’s arbitrary application of censorship, although Trump wasn’t actually censored at the time. Trump did bring up the legalities of Twitter stepping in to decide what was permitted or not. Trump’s dispute arose over a simple warning tag that Twitter placed over his Tweet—not its removal—and most certainly not his entire removal from the platform. Twitter’s so-called legal “Safe Harbor” is predicated on the company not interfering in its users’ communications and therefore having zero liability for what is posted there. But they DO interfere to a growing extent, and this interference is both arbitrary and accelerating.

I have been removed from the platform not for spreading fake news, and most certainly not for violent threats to anyone, but rather for calling those who do spread disinformation a forbidden word. The word itself is now a deadly mine, and so don’t type it. The language police, those nameless, faceless, unaccountable rodents in the festering, subterranean bowels of Twitter Inc. have erased this word from the English language. Take heed. If you type this word—it doesn’t matter the context—you may be booted from Twitter instantly without any recourse and all the connections you’ve forged there severed forever.

A little backstory: language is vast and sprawling. Slang terms have been around for centuries and are a perfectly valid usage. If anonymous censors were held to account, they’d have to justify why they were attacking some accounts and not others for saying the same things. That is the area where Twitter has no standing: the hypocrisy, the selective enforcement, the double-standard, the deliberate misreading of a word.

So, here is the offending Tweet:

 

Your retarded fanbase refuses to wear masks, and is therefore spreading it recklessly. Number of total cases is up, and it isn’t going away, silly propagandist.”

 

Analyzing this verboten message, the only conceivable problem (for a P.C. Fanatic) must be the single word “retarded.” Twitter was under no obligation to explain exactly why the communication was of such a sinister nature that my entire account, history, and followers list had to be instantly destroyed and thrown down the Memory Hole.

So, let’s accept that calling a mentally handicapped person “retarded” would probably be rude, offensive, and unnecessary. That still doesn’t rise to the level of “hateful,” not unless someone was calling for euthanasia against the handicapped—as I’m sure some others on the platform undoubtedly do.

The Tweet, however, was directed at the right-wing propagandist Laura Ingraham, who is not mentally handicapped. So the little question of relevance comes into play, but only if the scurrying roaches in the disease-ridden sewers of Twitter Inc. had any inkling whatsoever of the concept of relevance in the first place. They have demonstrated no such acumen.

If one doesn’t direct the word “retarded” at someone with an actual mental handicap, then it cannot possibly fall under the amorphous catch-all censorship category of “hateful conduct.”

Case in point, on the very same day that I told Laura Ingraham that her retarded crew were acting recklessly, and thus endangering innocent people by spreading a pandemic, she Tweeted out this:

 

Laura Ingraham @IngrahamAngle

Jun 23

Self-loathing idiots.

 

Idiots!”

I am completely offended! Idiot was a term for a mentally handicapped person! This is outrageous. The double-standard has brought this farce into stark relief. Ban Laura Igraham immediately for hateful conduct against the mentally handicapped.

I did attempt to respond to Twitter that:

 

“Retarded” has been a colloquial synonym for STUPID for over a century. Are you canceling everyone’s account who calls another person “stupid” by any of a hundred synonyms? Because you’d have no more members.

A quick Google search of “stupid” on Twitter.com finds:

“About 5,560,000 results”

 

That response was never read, as the great corporation has no interest in responding to those it has censored. It simply erases you, and threatens that it will erase you further should you attempt to evade its blacklist. This is how I would expect corporate governance to operate.

NBC repeatedly broadcast a Saturday Night Live sketch where a pair of young Bostonian lovers would rib each other:

 

You’re retah-ded!”

No, you are!”

 

Will NBC, SNL, or any of the actors, writers, directors or producers involved be sanctioned by Twitter Inc.? Their accounts destroyed?

By selectively enforcing rules on certain accounts and not enforcing them on others, Twitter has shown itself to be retarded.

 


Joe Giambrone is an author and filmmaker.

535401050.jpg

Palestine Information Center

 

Facebook takes down page of Palestine news site 

 

 

gaza-attack

 

Banned from Facebook for talking about Netanyahu protest…

link

roundup
Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases

Anthony Samsel 1 and Stephanie Seneff 

New review of hundreds of studies of RoundUp and its toxic ingredient glyphosate adds more scientific support to ban this product and reverse the tsunami of inferior genetically modified food like substances.

ECOWATCH explains the findings:

“Glyphosate impairs the cytochrome P450 (CYP) gene pathway, which creates enzymes that help to form and also break down molecules in cells. There are myriad important CYP enzymes, including aromatase (the enzyme that converts androgen into estrogen) and 21-Hydroxylase, which creates cortisol (stress hormone) and aldosterone (regulates blood pressure). One function of these CYP enzymes is also to detoxify xenobiotics, which are foreign chemicals like drugs, carcinogens or pesticides. Glyphosate inhibits these CYP enzymes, which has rippling effects throughout our body.”

censorjpeg
 

This is an uncomfortable discussion.

 
Apparently Icelandic ministers are trying to ban pornography in the nation — an almost impossible task that opens up another can of worms, concerning how?

Gail Dines has been on a feminist Jihad to ban pornography for quite some time. She writes:

“Here was a politician who was unapologetically opposed to porn because it undermines women’s equality, and equally bold in his willingness to create legislation that limits Icelandic men and boy’s access to hard-core, cruel porn. He said this at dinner, repeated it two days later at a public conference on pornography and the law, and is saying it again in his efforts to draft a law that will be the first of its type anywhere in the world. Never before has a country tried to limit porn because it is seen as a violation of women and children’s civil rights.”

Slippery slope here we come. The American ACLU has long defended the rights of consenting adults to produce and choose to view sexual material. We should be clear that adult material is exactly what this law is seeking to ban, and it is unfortunately couched in the words “women and children’s civil rights” which may be completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The law described is not about child pornography, which is already banned pretty much worldwide — and not enough law enforcement is brought to bear on it, particularly in countries where it is most rampant. No, this is about adult material, which the internet is brimming with. Her argument is to try and qualify her target better with the words, “hard-core, cruel porn.” That is certain to scare off opposition, as no one wants to be seen as publicly endorsing such material.

Thus, governments would need to begin employing people to scrutinize what is “hard-core, cruel porn,” and what is not. Entire bureaucracies of censors would need to begin policing a near infinite amount of materials, which flow freely around the world in volumes unimaginable. The idea of creating bureaucracies to censor the internet is a terrible one in itself. It’s a monumental waste of resources, and the criteria for determining the banned vs. non-banned material would be a matter of opinion. This would legislate that people have opinions on what sorts of graphic materials should be permitted vs. which should not.

Frank Zappa once debated several pro-censorship establishment talking heads, concerning proposed government censorship, and he made some great points:


 

The government should not be in the business of censoring internet traffic, art or speech. This is for the public to decide.

If the practices of a small number of pornographers is the real concern, then those should be investigated for violations of the law. Is the “cruel” pornography consensual? Was an assault committed? These are matters for local law enforcement to police. If women are victimized, they are not on the other side of the world, and initiating censorship half a world away is not going to affect their lives in any way, shape or form.

Gail Dines continues:

Ministers and senior staff I met there understood their role in honoring the integrity of their culture and saw porn as a form of cultural imperialism, since the porn Icelandic men consume is churned out by a small group of producers in Los Angeles. So the question is this: If the government does not protect us from global corporations, then who will, since as individual citizens we are powerless in the face of their enormous economic, cultural, and political power?

This claim goes way beyond a straw man fallacy and into straight out lying. Pornography is not a giant corporation in Los Angeles. That is so absurd to be laughable. There is very little barrier to entry in the business. Anyone with a phone and the will to participate can start filming each another. Porn is produced globally, and by every strata and every type of person imaginable. There is no evil corporate oligarchy. This is a political maneuver by Dines to try and capitalize on the anti-corporate sentiment out there, when her target is simply not appropriate.

Numerous women produce their own material, quite voluntarily. Would Dines ban them too? Even if they need the revenue to survive? Would Dines decide for the whole world what is permitted and what isn’t?

I hope Iceland’s government doesn’t make this error and insert itself into people’s bedrooms, its internet viewing and its sexual preferences. Censorship may seem like a good idea at first, but it brings with it increased government power, surveillance and arbitrariness. It thus disempowers the people and creates a chilling climate where art, speech and ideas are no longer freely offered. This is the exact wrong way to go, despite some real problems with the pornography industry. The idea of censoring one’s way to a solution, however, ignores the reality of it and presents a false panacea, as well as an unworkable solution.

the-people-vs-larry-flynt-144526