Posts Tagged ‘censor’

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.

facebook-censoring-Tulsi-Article copy

That is MY latest article, The War on Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D).

It cannot be posted to Tulsi Gabbard Facebook groups now.

The lie they use to censor speech is to say unnamed, amorphous “people” complained about it with one of the right buzzwords: “abusive.” There wasn’t even time for real “people” to have read the article. It’s a ploy, corporate-speak ro justify their censorship.

Facebook is directly interfering in the election, censoring content that supports candidates they apparently don’t like. That makes Facebook a clear and present danger to democracy.

PS.

Facebook stopped blocking the article from being posted to groups. So, a minor victory. Their system is vulnerable to trolls to report everything they don’t like and have Facebook automatically censor it on their behalf.

assange-nike copy

BBC, Sky News Have Hidden Their Interviews With UN Expert On The Torture Of Assange

UN Special Rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer has said that on the 31st of May he gave video interviews with both Sky News and the BBC on his findings that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is the victim of psychological torture. As of this writing, footage of those interviews is nowhere to be found.

censorship

google-evil (1)

After the advertising scandal on Antiwar.com we see more evidence that Google is directly attacking WeAreChange.

“They said it’s sensitive content.”
-Luke R.

dont-be-evil-google1
How Google Adsense Is Censoring WeAreChange and Independent Media

51db9heujtl-_sl500_aa300_

How the Media Protects Obama

Another White House flack, Eric Schultz, didn’t like being pressed for answers about the Fast and Furious scandal in which American agents directed guns into the arms of Mexican drug lords. “Goddammit, Sharyl!” he screamed at her. “The Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You’re the only one who’s not reasonable!”

RT Breaking the Set:

http://youtu.be/IwOpwmMu0YY

RED FLAG

RT has ignored all the evidence that has emerged of CIA links to the Boston bombers, including their own uncle.  Breaking the Set has yet to utter the name “Graham Fuller” just like the rest of the censored US media.  The assumption that FBI was too distracted to look into the Tsarnaev brothers doesn’t fly.  The CIA has interfered in previous cases with FBI monitoring of terrorist suspects who were working FOR CIA.

FBI malfeasance happened in the 9/11 case and with Ali Mohammad.  This may be the explanation for FBI’s refusal to monitor the Tsarnaev brothers, and NOT this easy to digest “distraction” story.

+

And a little unknown history from the NY Times:

The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.

Abdussattar Shaikh 2 fox news_2050081722-32524

In his book “Intelligence Matters,” Mr. Graham, the co-chairman of the Congressional inquiry with Representative Porter J. Goss, Republican of Florida, said an F.B.I. official wrote them in November 2002 and said “the administration would not sanction a staff interview with the source.” On Tuesday, Mr. Graham called the letter “a smoking gun” and said, “The reason for this cover-up goes right to the White House.”

The report added to suspicions about a Saudi role in the hijacking plot.

Senator Accuses Bush of Cover-Up
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: September 8, 2004

 

I’ve been battling censorship head on this past week, and it is staggering.

Another piece of hard evidence on US media censorship has become too glaring and offensive to ignore.  Yesterday I posted a piece from the Jerusalem Post.

Retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson:

“A former senior official in the Bush administration said on Thursday the use of chemical weapons in Syria might have been a “false flag operation” of Israel, meant to implicate Syrian President Bashar Assad.”We don’t know what the chain of custody is. This could’ve been an Israeli false flag operation, it could’ve been an opposition in Syria… or it could’ve been an actual use by Bashar Assad. But we certainly don’t know with the evidence we’ve been given. And what I’m hearing from the intelligence community is that that evidence is really flakey,” retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, told Cenk Uygur in an interview with Current TV.”

There is not one article in the entire US corporate media reporting this, or mentioning Col. Wilkerson’s concerns over the “chain of custody” of nerve gas evidence.  Wilkerson, of course, knows the nerve gas is in the possession of the Jihadist lunatics supported by our “good friends” in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.  These Jihadists already made a Youtube video spilling the beans and testing the gas.

Jihadi-nervegas copy

America doesn’t have a Nazi Volksaufklärung und Propaganda.  It doesn’t need one.  It functions smoothly in the interest of a narrow, elite set of warmongers’ interests right now.

Censorship on matters of war and peace leads to mass murder, war crimes, atrocities beyond words.  That is the game US corporate media plays, and their actions surrounding the Iraq War lies in 2002-2003 should have been the wakeup call tot he world that these shills cannot be trusted.  They do not tell the public the whole story.  It is not in their interest to keep you informed.

shaman-tree

Probably the most brutally honest and emotional TED talk ever. Of course it was censored by them.

 

Ayahuasca

—C E N S O R E D T E D x T A L K— The War on Consciousness, Graham Hancock at TEDxWhitechapel

Published on Mar 14, 2013

Graham Hancock’s TEDx talk censored by TED’s science board.

“I am fighting these charges from TED’s Science Board which in my opinion are untrue and amount to nothing more than an ideologically driven attempt to censor my work.” – Graham Hancock

Do they realize that two Nobel prize winning scientists (Francis Crick and Kary Mullis) have been inspired by psychedelics to produce the work that got them the prize?

Obviously critical members of the TED scientific board have little or no literacy in the psychology, pharmacology, scientific research, and anthropology of psychedelic/entheogenic substance use. If they did they would realize that there is an overwhelming accumulation of evidence from scientific research for the medical and psychotherapeutic benefits of this class of substances, most of which are natural products that are far safer, physiologically, than alcohol and a myriad of drugs over-used in Western society much to it’s detriment.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer

Read ‘The New Inquisition’ by Robert Anton Wilson if you would like an intellectual understanding of why such so-called “scientific boards” think in this way about new paradigm ideas and methods.

Most scientists are still stuck in the Newtonian era of science, they do not understand quantum physics, what it implies, and the connection to consciousness as an animate meta-biological force that is primary to nature and timelessly extends beyond nature.

Transmission theory of consciousness is a new paradigm for understanding brain functionality that supports this new paradigm in science, it asserts that the brain is actually a confining receiver of consciousness like a TV set (signal still exists when TV is off), as opposed to a producer of consciousness (a theory that can’t account for the mind).

Dr Stan Grof on LSD in 1956:

“I couldn’t believe how much I learned about my psyche in those few hours. I experienced a fantastic display of colorful visions, some abstract and geometrical, others figurative and filled with symbolic import. The sheer intensity of the array of emotions I felt simply amazed me. I was hit by a radiance that seemed comparable to the epicenter of a nuclear explosion, or perhaps the light of supernatural brilliance said in oriental scriptures to appear to us at the moment of death. This thunderbolt catapulted me out of my body. First I lost my awareness of my immediate surroundings, then the psychiatric clinic, then Prague (Czechoslovakia), and finally the planet. At an inconceivable speed my consciousness expanded to cosmic dimensions. I experienced the Big Bang, passed through black holes and white holes in the universe, identified with exploding supernovas, and witnessed many other strange phenomena that seemed to be pulsars, quasars, and other cosmic events.”

“I was able to see the irony and paradox of the situation. The divine manifested itself and took me over in a modern scientific laboratory in the middle of a scientific experiment conducted in a communist country with a substance produced in the test tube of a 20th-century chemist.”