+- RichieAllen.co.uk Forum (https://forums.richieallen.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Community (https://forums.richieallen.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://forums.richieallen.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Free Speech (/showthread.php?tid=394)
RE: Free Speech - Steve - 08-20-2022
Journalist’s coverage of Pedophilia within English Parliament believed to Trigger Attack of UK’s Largest Free Speech Platform, BrandNewTube
This week, Britain’s largest free speech video platform, BrandNewTube.com (BNT) was attacked and shutdown by hackers believed to be linked to the English government, according to BNT.
The platform does not censor and independent journalists have been posting videos showing the infiltration of pedophilia and corruption in British parliament. BNT, as stated below, believe this exposure has led to them being a target of attack. It is difficult to prove this was the reason, but other platforms have clearly censored these same topics for years.
Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and UK’s largest video platform, DailyMotion, are notorious for censoring coverage of pedophilia and government corruption linked to human sex trafficking. Unfortunately, censorship combined with authorities lack of prosecution for decades, has led our world to the state it is in today; a place where human trafficking is the largest black market in the world.
We can all help make our world better by supporting platforms like BNT that do not censor important stories covering heinous crimes by government and other powerful entities. It’s not difficult to switch from Youtube or DailyMotion to BrandNewTube.com, Bitchute.com, Rumble.com or other freedom oriented platforms. This one action, if enacted by millions, will undoubtably change the world. Knowledge really is power.
https://sarahwestall.com/journalists-coverage-of-pedophilia-within-english-parliament-believed-to-trigger-attack-of-uks-largest-free-speech-platform-brandnewtube/
RE: Free Speech - awakened53 - 08-26-2022
Google-YouTube Changes Rules – Will No Longer Ban Statements on Masking and Vaccine Efficacy Because These Were Always Just Lies They Were Promoting
Earlier today commentator and podcaster Tim Pool tweeted out YouTube’s updated Coronavirus rules.
Youtube recently removed the rule barring claims that the vaccines do not reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19.
That was a lie. YouTube banned users for over a year for stating this obvious fact. Now they don’t.
YouTube recently also removed the rule barring claims that masking was ineffective and actually destructive to children.
That was also a lie. YouTube banned users and censored their contact for over a year for stating this obvious fact. Now they don’t.
Quote:archive – https://t.co/f1tYuRqZuJ
current – https://t.co/NrMYI3rBLH
— Tim Pool (@Timcast) August 25, 2022
Read more: Google-YouTube Changes Rules – Will No Longer Ban Statements on Masking and Vaccine Efficacy Because These Were Always Just Lies They Were Promoting
RE: Free Speech - awakened53 - 09-03-2022
Lawsuit Uncovers Sprawling Network Of Federal/Social Media Collusion To Censor Americans During Pandemic
Evidence has been discovered and verified that at least eleven federal agencies and the White House itself, coordinated with Big Media to illegally censor speech of Americans over COVID-related issues. As noted below, “this unlawful enterprise has been wildly successful.” — Technocracy News & Trends Editor Patrick Wood
The New Civil Liberties Alliance, the Attorney General of Missouri, and the Attorney General of Louisiana, have filed a lawsuit that blows the lid off a sprawling federal censorship regime that will shock the conscience of Americans. The joint statement on discovery disputes in the lawsuit, State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al., reveals scores of federal officials across at least eleven federal agencies have secretly communicated with social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech federal officials disfavor. This unlawful enterprise has been wildly successful.
Under the First Amendment, the federal government may not police private speech nor pick winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. But that is precisely what the government has done—and is still doing—on a massive scale not previously divulged. Multiple agencies’ communications demonstrate that the federal government has exerted tremendous pressure on social media companies—pressure to which companies have repeatedly bowed.
Discovery has unveiled an army of federal censorship bureaucrats, including officials arrayed at the White House, HHS, DHS, CISA, the CDC, NIAID, the Office of the Surgeon General, the Census Bureau, the FDA, the FBI, the State Department, the Treasury Department, and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Communications show these federal officials are fully aware that the pressure they exert is an effective and necessary way to induce social-media platforms to increase censorship. The head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency even griped about the need to overcome social-media companies’ “hesitation” to work with the government.
Read More: Lawsuit Uncovers Sprawling Network Of Federal/Social Media Collusion To Censor Americans During Pandemic
RE: Free Speech - awakened53 - 09-13-2022
California Fascists Vote to Ban All ‘Covid’ Fake Vaccine Dissent by Doctors despite the fake vaccine killing and maiming for life enormous numbers of people – California is run (officially) by Klaus Schwab ‘graduate’ Gavin Newsom
California’s full-time Legislature has been comprised for years of a Democratic Party super-majority, backed by Democrats in every statewide office. This has emboldened them to enact anything they want, with essentially no checks or balances.
The recently completed legislative session provided more stunning examples of their excesses. They voted to set wages for fast food workers, permit abortion through the ninth month and fund services for it for out-of-state residents, and implement climate change initiatives requiring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 85 percent. State regulators also recently voted to completely ban gas-powered vehicles by 2035.
But perhaps most stunningly, the one-party state’s lawmakers voted to suppress all dissent by doctors when it comes to COVID-19. Assembly Bill 2098 effectively creates a “Ministry of Truth” that assures all information disseminated by doctors in the state conforms with the opinion of the ruling party. It directs the state’s medical board to take action against any doctor who spreads misinformation or disinformation about COVID-19. Under the legislation, it is “unprofessional conduct” to spread such information regarding “the nature and risks of the virus; COVID-19 prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”
The bill is on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for his signature. The breadth of the proposal is astounding: It bans both misinformation and disinformation. In case you don’t know the difference, the bill defines each. The ruling party declares that “misinformation” means “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.” “Disinformation” means “misinformation that the licensee deliberately disseminated with malicious intent or an intent to mislead.”
Read More: California’s Legislature Votes to Ban All COVID-19 Vaccine Dissent by Doctors
RE: Free Speech - awakened53 - 09-25-2022
Can Woke Institutions be Salvaged or Must We Build Anew?
From Cambridge University to the Conservative Party, major institutions have been either taken over or infiltrated by the proponents of postmodernism. When I say postmodernism, I mean not just its pernicious elements – neo-Marxist identity politics, compelled speech and the assault on truth itself – but also how these elements manifest: cancel culture, climate apocalypticism, critical race theory and the erosion of liberty.
Universities were the foundation of the Enlightenment, bringing the smartest minds together to think on and attempt to answer the most difficult scientific and philosophical questions of the day. The job of these institutions is to preserve the past and then educate the young in order to pass that knowledge along.
The concept of a university, where experts in different fields gather to bounce ideas off each other, has become exploited and poisoned by extremists wanting to push their own agendas. The guardians of our nation’s heritage, from our museums to the British Library and the National Trust, seem to be more interested in trashing our history than preserving it.
Have these once great institutions become so in thrall to the woke mob that they are corrupted beyond repair?
The National Trust is trying to link Winston Churchill to the slave trade, the British Museum is attempting to ‘decolonise’ its collections and even the Conservative party is attempting to regulate speech online with its online safety bill. These once great institutions are now shadows of their former selves.
Part of the issue here is that if we set up public institutions, they tend naturally to become dominated by parasitic bureaucrats who are pushing an agenda. Perhaps merely setting our institutions up so they are publicly funded to such a great degree drastically increases the probability that they will become ideologically dominated.
Read More: Can Woke Institutions be Salvaged or Must We Build Anew?
RE: Free Speech - awakened53 - 11-01-2022
DHS Coordinated Massive Censorship Operations With Major Big Tech Platforms, Leaked Docs Confirm
The Department of Homeland Security, FBI and other government agencies have been working closely with numerous Big Tech companies to coordinate widespread censorship operations, leaked internal documents reveal.
According to Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) meeting minutes and other records attached to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt ®, the agencies discussed censorship frameworks and tactics ranging from the scale and scope of government intervention in online discourse to the mechanics of streamlining takedown requests to Big Tech companies for false or intentionally misleading information.
The DHS ramped up their censorship operations leading up to the 2020 election and amid the COVID pandemic to target “inaccurate information” on a wide range of topics, including “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine,” according to a draft copy of DHS’s Quadrennial Homeland Security Review obtained by The Intercept.
The DHS’s online censorship operation was prolific and widespread, thanks to the cooperation of Silicon Valley.
“Prior to the 2020 election, tech companies including Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Wikipedia, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Verizon Media met on a monthly basis with the FBI, CISA, and other government representatives,” The Intercept reported. “According to NBC News, the meetings were part of an initiative, still ongoing, between the private sector and government to discuss how firms would handle misinformation during the election.”
Emails and documents also revealed Facebook created a portal only accessible to government officials that fast-tracked formal requests to the platform to kill or label alleged misinformation.
“There is also a formalized process for government officials to directly flag content on Facebook or Instagram and request that it be throttled or suppressed through a special Facebook portal that requires a government or law enforcement email to use. At the time of writing, the ‘content request system’ at facebook.com/xtakedowns/login is still live. DHS and Meta, the parent company of Facebook, did not respond to a request for comment. The FBI declined to comment,” The Intercept reported.
The most high-profile instance of the government pressuring social media companies to remove information came with the suppression of the Hunter Biden story days before the 2020 election, where Twitter locked the paper’s account and prevented the story from being shared on its platform.
Likewise, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted the FBI approached Facebook warning about the imminent release of the Hunter Biden story.
The Biden administration tried to publicly codify some of these policies earlier this year with the formation of a “Disinformation Governance Board,” which was quickly scrapped amid massive backlash.
Whistleblowers subsequently revealed the Disinformation Governance Board’s true purpose was to censor information it didn’t like.
The Biden regime also released a “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” directive last June that outlines a “broader priority: enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence.”
But prior to these leaks, it was unclear exactly how the government specifically worked with Big Tech to censor information before the 2020 election and beyond.
These revelations make clear the government tried to create an end-run around the First Amendment by tasking social media platforms to remove information they didn’t like, a constitutional violation.
Read More: DHS Coordinated Massive Censorship Operations
RE: Free Speech - awakened53 - 11-07-2022
Censorship and Defamation: Weapons of Control
In a stunning article published in the academic journal “Minerva,” the mainstream academic publisher Springer has allowed truth to be spoken. Minerva may not be known to many of you, but by no means is it “obscure.” It has a decent 5-year impact factor of 2.7. (That is decent for the social sciences, anyway.). And it’s a Q1 journal in its subfield. And by the way, the first author on the paper is Yaffa Shir-Raz, who broke the story with video from the internal meeting at the Israeli ministry of health and how they hid many of the key findings regarding the Pfizer mRNA vaccine adverse effects.
Censorship and Suppression of Covid‑19 Heterodoxy: Tactics and Counter‑Tactics, Yaffa Shir‑Raz, Ety Elisha. Brian Martin. Natti Ronel, Josh Guetzkow, Accepted: 28 September 2022, Published online: 01 November 2022
Having personally lived through what may be among the most intensive slander, defamation and derision campaigns of the COVID crisis, none of what was described in this article surprised me. I think that I can probably guess the names of some of the interviewed physicians and medical scientists discussed in the article, as so many have shared their own experiences with me. But seeing it written out in a dry academic style and published like a case series study of global corporate, organizational and governmental psychopathology and greed is another thing altogether. I expected the article to bring a tear of relief at being heard and validated, but instead it just left me numb.
The publication summarized much of what I have personally experienced (and by way of disclosure of conflict of interest, I was mentioned as an example in the introduction, although I did not participate in the survey). Much but not all. It missed the ubiquitous Wikipedia rewriting of personal history (and in my case, writing me out of the history of nine of my issued US patents).
It missed Amazon’s deleting the very credible and well-referenced book on “Prepare and protect from the novel Coronavirus” which Dr. Jill Glasspool-Malone PhD (Biotechnology and Public Policy) had worked so hard to publish in the first week of February 2020 – with the only explanation being that it “violated community standards.”
It missed the concerted effort to deny my contributions as a young man to coming up with the whole idea of using mRNA as a drug or vaccine, and developing the technology to the point where it was proven in a mouse model. It missed the (largely successful) stolen valor campaign to credit two scientists (one a Fauci post-doc, the other a Bio-N-Tech VP) who came along almost a decade after my work and sought to take credit for my contributions while writing me out of history.
It missed the professional infiltration and disruption campaigns designed to destroy the American trucker protest movement and the medical freedom movements. It missed the YouTube deletions of US Senate testimony convened by a sitting US Senator, Ron Johnson.
Read More – Censorship and Defamation: Weapons of Control
RE: Free Speech - awakened53 - 11-29-2022
Cult-Owned Crown Prosecution Service Says it is ‘No Longer Appropriate’ to Quote Some Passages From the Bible in Public
A statement by the U.K.’s main prosecution service says it is “no longer appropriate” to read parts of the Bible aloud in public. Christian groups have called the statement “ill-judged” and “concerning”. The Belfast Newsletter has more.
The story all stems from a confrontation between a man called John Dunn, a soldier-turned-evangelist, and two lesbians. It took place on the streets of Swindon two years ago. Mr. Dunn was charged with using “threatening or abusive words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”.
While pressing their case against him though, the CPS said the following in writing to the court: “Whether a statement of Christian belief or not, the court is being asked to consider whether the language has the potential to cause harassment, alarm or distress. “This document is not the forum for religious debate, but the bible contains other material recognising slavery (Exodus 21:7), the death sentence (Exodus 35:2 and Leviticus 24:16) and cannibalism (Deuteronomy 28:27).
Read more: Cult-Owned Crown Prosecution Service Says it is ‘No Longer Appropriate’ to Quote Some Passages From the Bible in Public
RE: Free Speech - awakened53 - 12-10-2022
British State Deployed Counter-Terrorism Unit to Crush Social Media and Scientific Dissent on Fake Vaccines and Lockdowns
Mass vaccination mission creep, no rigorous vaccine safety monitoring, counter-terrorism units deployed to crush scientific and social media dissent, major restrictions pursued for political reasons without evidence, expert advisers ignored – just some of the revelations made by Isabel Oakeshott in the Spectator this week. Fresh from co-authoring Matt Hancock’s pandemic diaries, the lockdown-sceptical journalist has written down the “key lessons” she took away from the very revealing writing process she undertook with a man whose approach to the pandemic she vehemently opposes. Here’s an extended excerpt:
[b]Vaccine policy[/b]
The crusade to vaccinate the entire population against a disease with a low mortality rate among all but the very elderly is one of the most extraordinary cases of mission creep in political history. On January 3rd 2021, Hancock told the Spectator that once priority groups had been jabbed (13 million doses) then “Cry freedom”. Instead, the Government proceeded to attempt to vaccinate everyone, including children, and there was no freedom for another seven months. Sadly, we now know some young people died as a result of adverse reactions to a jab they never needed. Meanwhile experts have linked this month’s deadly outbreak of Strep A in young children to the weakening of their immune systems because they were prevented from socialising. Who knows what other long-term health consequences of the policy may emerge?
Why did the goalposts move so far off the pitch? I believe multiple driving forces combined almost accidentally to create a policy which was never subjected to rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Operating in classic Whitehall-style silos, key individuals and agencies – the JCVI, Sage, the MHRA – did their particular jobs, advising on narrow and very specific safety and regulatory issues. At no point did they all come together, along with ministers and, crucially, medical and scientific experts with differing views on the merits of whole-population vaccination, for a serious debate about whether such an approach was desirable or wise.
The apparent absence of any such discussion at the top of Government is quite remarkable. The Treasury raised the occasional eyebrow at costs, but if a single cabinet minister challenged the policy on any other grounds, I’ve seen no evidence of it…
[Hancock] is adamant that he never cut corners on safety, though the tone of his internal communications suggest that in his hurtling rush to win the global race for a vaccine, he personally would have been willing to take bigger risks. I believe he would have justified any casualties as sacrifices necessary for the greater good. Fortunately (in my view) his enthusiasm was constrained by medical and scientific advisers, and by the Covid vaccine tsar Kate Bingham, who was so alarmed by his haste that at one point she warned him that he might ‘kill people’. She never thought it was necessary to jab everyone and repeatedly sought to prevent Hancock from over-ordering. Once he had far more than was needed for the initial target group of elderly and clinically vulnerable patients, he seems to have felt compelled to use it. Setting ever more ambitious vaccination rollout targets was a useful political device, creating an easily understood schedule for easing lockdown and allowing the government to play for time amid the threat of new variants. The strategy gave the Conservatives a big bounce in the polls, which only encouraged the party leadership to go further.
Read More: British State Deployed Counter-Terrorism Unit to Crush Social Media and Scientific Dissent on Vaccines and LockdownsRE: Free Speech - awakened53 - 12-13-2022
The Shameful Crushing of Dissenters (By lying psychopaths like Hancock)
You may have questioned the veracity of government pandemic interventions: it might have been masks, the rule of six or the 10 o’clock curfew; it may have been the modelling that finally tipped you over the edge. But without dissenters to the Government’s pandemic policies, it would have taken much longer to exit lockdowns, and if China is anything to go by, we might not yet have re-emerged.
With the publication of Matt Hancock’s diaries, we’re discovering the true extent of the Government’s suppression strategies and those behind them.
In July 2020, we wrote in the Spectator about whether face masks help. The article was motivated by the rollout of mask mandates at the end of the month. We expressed the uncertainty in the evidence-base and the setting of policy based on “opinions, radical views and political influence”.
This article went largely unchallenged. However, this all changed in November 2020, when we further published on the only European community trial of masks and the update of our Cochrane Review that found no significant effect for facemask wearers.
The Danish trial done during the pandemic joined 16 other trials carried out over the years at times of variable respiratory agents’ circulation in showing no significant effect, either if compared to not wearing masks at all or wearing other types of face coverings, irrespective of setting.
Despite hundreds of positive comments, the article got censored by Facebook. It led to a vitriolic campaign of denigration with sundry personal attacks, personal losses of posts, complaint procedures to our institutions, smear campaigns and the setting up of websites backed by ministers to attack dissenting academics and journalists.
But we now learn from Isabel Oakeshott’s piece that the attacks were partly orchestrated by Hancock, who harnessed the full power of the state to silence ‘dissenters’.
Quote:As far as Hancock was concerned, anyone who fundamentally disagreed with his approach was mad and dangerous and needed to be shut down.These were the actions of the Right Honourable Minister, the Health Secretary. Make of that what you will, but actions considered acceptable in a communist state were now mainstream and, as it seems, acceptable at the heart of Government.
According to Oakeshott’s piece, the origins of mask mandates in the community were Dominic Cummings’s obsession with masks and a desire to please Ms. Sturgeon. However, the most important figures “Hancock, Whitty and Johnson knew full well that non-medical masks do very little to prevent transmission of the virus”. You could readily translate this to the fact that there was no high quality evidence to support mandates, as we pointed out in July 2020.
Read More: The Shameful Crushing of Dissenters