Posts Tagged ‘political speech’

fb-tulsi-attack

 

Another example: Facebook’s assault on US democracy.

Here’s what happened:

“Jae” built up a page with thousands of candidate Tulsi Gabbard’s followers by posting relevant news articles. The Grand Zuckerbot decided to simply call him a “bot” and destroy his identity, thereby losing all the followers he had built up. This is direct interference in the US election process. This is targeted political action by Facebook. It’s dishonest, and potentially criminal. If Russia had destroyed a Hillary Clinton support group on Facebook, the corporate/state media would never shut up about it–we’d be at DEFCON 2!

But attack outsider peace candidates like Bernie or Tulsi Gabbard, and the attack on American’s political choices doesn’t even get news coverage in this sick, decrepit empire of assholes.

 

chuck-nancy-matrixk copy

 

I haven’t heard of this “Free Speech Institute” before, but they seem to have their shit together. Recall Pelosi and friends are the ones making it illegal to boycott Israeli products or even talk about it. Something to investigate.

Analysis of H.R. 1 (Part One)
&

ACLU Concurs: ACLU LETTER TO HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE ON H.R. 1

 

Executive Summary

Specifically, H.R. 1 would:

  • Unconstitutionally regulate speech that mentions a federal candidate or elected official at any time under a severely vague, subjective, and broad standard that asks whether the speech “promotes,” “attacks,” “opposes,” or “supports” (“PASO”) the candidate or official.
  • Force groups to file burdensome and likely duplicative reports with the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) if they sponsor ads that are deemed to PASO the president or members of Congress in an attempt to persuade those officials on policy issues.
  • Compel groups to declare on these so-called “campaign-related disbursement” reports that their ads are either “in support of or in opposition” to the elected official mentioned, even if their ads do neither. This form of compulsory speech and forcing organizations to declare their allegiance to or against public officials is unconscionable and unconstitutional.
  • Force groups to publicly identify certain donors on these reports for issue ads and on the face of the ads themselves. Faced with the prospect of being inaccurately associated with what, by law, would be considered (unjustifiably, in many or most instances) “campaign” ads in FEC reports and disclaimers, many donors will choose simply not to give to nonprofit groups.
  • Subject far more issue ads to burdensome disclaimer requirements, which will coerce groups into truncating their substantive message and make some advertising, especially online, practically impossible.
  • Focus public attention on the individuals and donors associated with the sponsoring organizations rather than on the communications’ substantive message, thereby exacerbating the politics of personal destruction and further coarsening political discourse.
  • Force organizations that make grants to file their own reports and publicly identify their own donors if an organization is deemed to have “reason to know” that a donee entity has made or will make “campaign-related disbursements.” This vague and subjective standard will greatly increase the legal costs of vetting grants and many groups will simply end grant programs.
  • Likely eliminate the ability of many employees to make voluntary contributions through employee-funded PACs, which give employees a voice in the political process with respect to issues that affect their livelihoods.
  • Effectively prohibit many domestic subsidiaries, and perhaps most corporations with even a single foreign shareholder with voting shares, from making independent expenditures, contributions to super PACs, or contributions to candidates for state and local office, thus usurping the laws in more than half of the states that allow such contributions.This appears to be a thinly veiled artifice to overturn Citizens United and to unconstitutionally accomplish by legislation what congressional Democrats failed to achieve by constitutional amendment in 2014.
  • Disproportionately burden the political speech rights of corporations, thereby ending the long-standing parity in the campaign finance law between corporations and unions.
  • Increase regulation of the online speech of American citizens while purporting to address the threat of Russian propaganda.
  • Expand the universe of regulated online political speech (by Americans) beyond paid advertising to include, apparently, communications on groups’ or individuals’ own websites and e-mail messages.
  • Regulate speech (by Americans) about legislative issues by expanding the definition of “electioneering communications” – historically limited to large-scale TV and radio campaigns targeted to the electorate in a campaign for office – to include online advertising, even if the ads are not targeted in any way at a relevant electorate.
  • Impose what is effectively a new public reporting requirement on (American) sponsors of online issue ads by expanding the “public file” requirement for broadcast, cable, and satellite media ads to many online platforms. The public file requirements would compel some of the nation’s leading news sources to publish information, which is likely unconstitutional.Both advertisers and online platforms would be liable for providing and maintaining the information required to be kept in these files, which would increase the costs of online advertising, especially for low-cost grassroots movements. Some of these online outlets may decide to discontinue accepting such ads due to the expense of complying with the requirements.The “public file” also may subject (American) organizers of contentious but important political causes like “Black Lives Matter” and the Tea Party to harassment by opponents or hostile government officials monitoring the content, distribution, and sponsorship of their activities.
  • Make broadcast, cable, satellite, and Internet media platforms liable if they allow political advertising by prohibited speakers to slip through, thereby driving up the costs of political advertising, especially for online ads where compliance costs are relatively high.
  • Impose inflexible disclaimer requirements on online ads that may make many forms of small, popular, and cost-effective ads off-limits for (American) political advertisers.

evil-twitter-birds-teaser.png

 

Testimony of Sean J. Edgett Acting General Counsel, Twitter, Inc

Blatant political censorship on Twitter:

As described in greater detail below, our systems detected and hid just under half (48%) of the Tweets relating to variants of another notable hashtag, #DNCLeak, which concerned the disclosure of leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee. These steps were part of our general efforts at the
time to fight automation and spam on our platform across all areas.

We noted above that, with respect to two such hashtags—#PodestaEmails and #DNCLeak—our automated systems detected, labeled, and hid a portion of related Tweets at the time they were created. The insights from our retrospective
review have allowed us to draw additional conclusions about the activity around those hashtags.

 

170219-chicago-day-without-immigrants-protest-1204p_2982fddc5d6a35b6703b6ab7bb5c2123.nbcnews-ux-600-480.jpg

Some businesses to avoid hereafter…

Employees Across U.S. Fired After Joining ‘Day Without Immigrants’ Protest

Some social media users are calling on others to boycott the small businesses and restaurants that fired immigrant workers.

gaza-attack

 

Banned from Facebook for talking about Netanyahu protest…

link

BLOG

[I should note that in Russia the Internet really does have a “CIA project” aspect to it.  This is how the US infiltrates nations, including Russia, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Cuba…

Putin’s heavy-handed reactionary stance is troubling.  He has also gone after fucking profanities in the arts.  This does not bode well for freedom in Russia.]

Russia Quietly Tightens Reins on Web With ‘Bloggers Law’

 

palestine1-1024x660

“Extermination of The Truth”: In America Law No Longer Exists
by Paul Craig Roberts

“…Downs and Manley write: ‘The implications are enormous. The government can now criminalize political, religious and social ideology and speech. Donating to peace groups, participating in protests, attending church, mosque or synagogue, entertaining friends, and posting material on the Internet, for example, could later be found to be illegal because of ‘associations,’ manufactured by anonymous experts, which in some way allegedly support designated terrorist organizations one has never heard of.’”