Troubled Times

In times of trouble, citizens can feel a sense of deep helplessness. With war, famine, or political unrest raging outside of their window, many feel compelled to help or somehow make a difference, but may not understand how their position is valued.

The organization Reporters Without Borders is a consultant for the United Nations and aims at defending freedom of press and information. They have been active in filing complaints to the International Criminal Court regarding the Russian military attacks on journalists and in assisting with reporting the tragedies in Ukraine more generally. Journalists with jobs as dangerous as this use a wide variety of tools to release data, but they are not inaccessible to the public.

Availability of communications (and basic services) is one of the first major concerns limiting speech in times of crisis. This may be an attempted shutoff from communications outside the country or simply an issue with delivery of services. Either way, this problem must be addressed before any other.

Ukrainians continue to face a crisis of the availability of basic utilities and tools for freedom of communication. This starts with internet access. Connections to primary ISPs in Ukraine are down a massive amount since the start of the invasion, to the point of showing a notable dip on monitoring maps.

However, Ukraine also has deep complexity in their smaller independent internet providers, unlike some countries which may rely on only a few larger monopolies. This creates a situation in which censorship by government entities becomes far more difficult to perform and utilities have more stability. Ukraine has faced censorship in the past, but there is some hope in satellite communications, which require far less infrastructure on the ground than traditional cable or fiber.

Starlink, which uses advanced satellites in low orbit, has been providing internet access to citizens who may not otherwise be able to access cable infrastructure due to damage or dangerous conditions. Though it is not the only option to evade censorship, it is likely quite appreciated by citizens in dire need or with less technical prowess.

In the world of cybersecurity, we have a lot of tools for evading censorship. The most traditional such as VPNs or Virtual Private Networks are a method of subverting prying eyes of internet providers or possible eavesdroppers on the local network.

Tor browsers are another option, being easily downloadable from the internet. They allow a user to connect into a vast network of open-source nodes that bounce around a users communications and make it harder to track them. Both common solutions allow users to access items that would otherwise be banned, dodging censorship, tracking, and monitoring by all forms of bad actors.

A step up from this is eliminating digital fingerprint. An example is through flashing an image of Tails (a Linux distribution specifically aimed towards privacy and security, famously used by Edward Snowden) to a flashdrive and using it to disseminate information, something recommended for use by Reporters Without Borders.

Over the years, weve also seen increasing popularity in applications like Signal, which provide end-to-end encryption on messages in an easily accessible mobile app. End-to-end encryption is vital when service providers cant be trusted to keep their eyes off of communications, because only the end users (the senders and recipients) are privy to the unencrypted data.

Some applications are very close to end-to-end encryption or have options for it, such as Telegram. These can be equally good options for everyday use, but those looking for a private pipeline for communications should use caution and ensure their level of privacy is what they desire. The risk of using applications like this is usually low, and to most, readily available.

As the war in Ukraine continues to devastate the country, it is vital that citizens and journalists under siege are able to access and transmit critical and accurate information. With cities and townships under almost constant bombardment, the ability to intercept or receive information or timely warnings can help keep people safe.

Journalists and media workers risk their lives to provide war coverage, as well as document evidence of atrocities. Using these tools and techniques can help at-risk journalists and civilians stay connected to critical emergency services, utilities, and life-saving information.

###

LogicHub harnesses the power of AI and automation for superior detection and response at a fraction of the cost. From small teams with security challenges, to large teams automating SOCs, LogicHub makes advanced detection and response easy and effective for everyone.

*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from Blog | LogicHub authored by Tessa Mishoe. Read the original post at: https://www.logichub.com/blog/under-the-wire-evading-censorship-protecting-sensitive-information

Excerpt from:

Under the Wire: Evading Censorship & Protecting Sensitive Information - Security Boulevard

Comedy shouldnt be this hard in 2022.

We just watched one of stand-ups biggest starsget slapped for telling the wrong joke during the 94th Oscars gala. Thats on top of the woke gestapo deciding how and why we can laugh.

Just ask Dave Chappelle.

Big Tech similarly threatens anyone who tells jokes outside the approved topic list.

Comedians like Ryan Long and Tyler Fischer found this out the hard way. The same is true for The Babylon Bee, which faces the double threat of fabulist fact checksalong with Big Tech censorship.

That Show Tonight is relatively new to the scene, but it swiftly joined the ranks of censorship victims. Why? Telling jokes about the current administration isnt approved by the powers that be, according to the fledgling troupe.

The series, spearheaded by comedian Michael Loftus, offers right-leaning satire for those exhausted by mainstream comedys hard-left agenda. The showcase features stars like Jim Breuer and guitar slinger Brian Haner cracking wise about President Joe Biden, COVID-19 mandates and more.

The shows TikTok account, launched in September, had more than 15K followers as of a few days ago. That Show Tonight clips generated hundreds of thousands of views, according to the show, including one video that boasted more than 400K views.

TikTok pulled down one video from the account, Coma Man, but quickly restored it following an appeal.

That was the only sign of trouble from the Chinese platform. No warnings, no clues that the channel ran afoul of TikTok culture. Nor did the comedy troupe post anything adult in nature, be it upsetting visuals or coarse language.

None of the above stopped TikTok from removing That Show Tonights account, presumably for good.

It isnt the only Big Tech interference the group has endured.

A representative of the troupe says YouTube and Facebook routinely block attempts to boost content parodying the Biden administration or the Left in general.

The group tried to circumvent this by attempting to promote a video featuring sad puppies, as harmless a clip as one can imagine, to make a point.

That strategy worked, but it only highlighted the content discrimination it faces.

Right-leaning comedians cant promote their work through the typical channels. Late night shows wont let them grace their couches.

Publications such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter rarely give them precious space on their sites.

Social media can be the great equalizer, letting rebellious talent thrive without corporate filters. Digital stars like Tim Dillon, Tom MacDonald, Buddy Brown and Chrissie Mayr have done just that.

Thats increasingly not the case, though, and its not funny for comedians trying to survive in a biased media landscape.

Original post:

Conservative 'That Show Tonight' Latest Victim of Big Tech Censorship - Hollywood in Toto

Algospeak is also often used in harmful or radical communities.

Some anti-vaccination groups on Facebook changed their names to euphemisms like Dance Party or Dinner Party, and began using code words to avoid getting banned Facebook, according to NBC News.

Phrases like "dancing or drinking beer mean getting the vaccine, while 'pizza' and 'Moana' are used to refer to vaccine-makers Pfizer and Moderna.

Pro-eating disorder and pro-anorexia communities, which encourage members to adopt unhealthy eating habits, have also used algospeak to continue operating undetected on social media platforms.

A study from the School of Interactive Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, found that the "pro-ED community has adopted non-standard lexical variations of moderated tags to circumvent these restrictions.

"In fact, increasingly complex lexical variants have emerged over time," it said, adding, "Despite Instagrams moderation strategies, pro-ED communities are active and thriving."

(With inputs from The Washington Post, NBC News, and MIT Technology Review)

View original post here:

Algospeak: The Simplest Way To Bypass Censorship on Social Media - The Quint

When George Floyd, an unarmed black man, was killed by Minneapolis police in May 2020, donations poured in for Black Lives Matter (BLM) from people who thought they were funding racial justice initiatives and helping to ensure bad-actor cops would finally be held accountable for their violent actions.

Surely some of the donationsdidgo toward that. But $6 million of them went toward paying for a 6,500-square-foot house in Southern California, replete with a pool and a bungalow.

Worse still, when theNew York Postreported on Black Lives Matter's organizational malfeasance, Facebook censored the story. Meta, which owns Facebook, has deemed the content "abusive."

In October 2020, Black Lives Matter received $66.5 million from generous donors. Later that same month, a man named Dyane Pascallthe financial manager for BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors' consulting firmbought the $6 million house. "Pascall transferred ownership of the house to an LLC established in Delaware by the law firm Perkins Coie," Sean Campbell reports at Intelligencer, which "ensured that the ultimate identity of the property's new owner was not disclosed to the public."

Since then, the house's raison d'etre has beensomewhat unclear. It serves as a sort of secure locationproviding high-ranking members of the organization a place to sleep when they need itbut also a place to record content for posting on social media, both for the BLM account and for Cullors' own projects (like a peach cobbler cooking video, notes Intelligencer).

More from Campbell:

On March 30, I asked the organization questions about the house, which is known internally as "Campus." Afterward, leaders circulated an internal strategy memo with possible responses, ranging from "Can we kill the story?" to "Our angle needs to be to deflate ownership of the property." The memo includes bullet points explaining that "Campus is part of cultural arm of the org potentially as an 'influencer house,' where abolition+ based content is produced by artists & creatives." Another bullet is headed "Accounting/990 modifications" and reads in part: "need to first make sure it's legally okay to use as we plan to use it." The memo also describes the property as a "safehouse" for leaders whose safety has been threatened. The two notions that the house is simultaneously a confidential refuge and a place for broadcasting to the widest possible audience are somewhat in tension. The memo notes: "Holes in security story: Use in public YT videos."

None of this is technically illegal, but all of it is ill-advised if your goal is to ensure donors trust that their money will be used to advance racial justice, not personal enrichment for the founders. And these reports, from both Intelligencerand the New York Post, are extraordinarily damning for an organization whose leaders have already come under scrutiny for their extravagant spending. Cullors' posh real estate holdings totaling at least $3.2 million were the subject of a prior New York Postpiece that ended up being censored by Facebook, unable to be shared on the platform.

This isn't the first time thePosthas run afoul of the Facebook overlords. In February 2020, the publication ran one of the earliest pieces introducing the theory to U.S. audiences that the coronavirus may have been the result of a lab leaka theory that became popular in May 2021, with The New York Times,The New Yorker, andThe Atlanticrunning articles that began to take the theory seriously, and one that still, months later, hasn't been discredited.

Facebook's fact-checkers somehow deemed thePost's reporting untrue, but reversed the ban on sharing man-made lab leak information inMay 2021.

And, in October 2020, after thePostpublished a report on Hunter Biden's laptop, Twitter suspended the publication's account while Facebook took steps to limit the reach of the article. Just last month, The New York Timesconfirmed that the initial reporting checked out with its own story on the Biden laptop. (Former head Jack Dorsey commented in November 2020 that Twitter had erred in its decision and reiterated his expansive commitment to free speech principles in congressional hearings months later, though Twitter has still been the subject of ongoing content moderation controversy.)

It's not just that such censorship is bad in principle (it is!), but also that the censors are often wrong and clumsy when they attempt to deem what's true and false. Private companies like Twitter and Facebook/Meta have every right to decide their own content moderation policies, but it's not hard to notice patterns in who and what they choose to crack down on. It's not always that the information is incorrect, just that the reporting is embarrassing to favored political causes or complicates a prevailing narrative.

It's unclear why an opulent 6,500-square-foot $6 million mansion is needed to end police brutality and bring about racial justice for black Americans. It's even more unclear why Facebook would want to hide this information from interested users, unless it sees its role as merely running interference for political allies, hiding credible journalism when it's damning to them.

Original post:

Why Is Facebook Censoring Articles About How BLM Used Donations To Buy a $6 Million House? - Reason

As states throughout the union mull calls to ban books, now seemed as good a time as any to revisit the debut novel of one of Americas most-challenged authors.

Toni Morrisons 1970 The Bluest Eye, which received the Nobel Prize in Literature, tells the story of Pecola Breedlove, a young Black girl growing up during the Great Depression who wishes to have blue eyes. Across its roughly 200 pages, Morrison explores themes of race, sexual assault and incest through haunting prose and compelling characters.

Born out of a conversation Morrison had with a girl in grade school, who was Black and wished for blue eyes, Morrison describes the novel as a response to what she calls racial self-loathing and how race affects self-image.

Like other works challenged because of their content, Morrisons novel masterfully stirs in readers questions about themselves and the world around them. They discuss uncomfortable topics that challenge the way people lead their lives. Morrison herself acknowledges that her novel is a terrible story about things one would rather not know anything about.

However, its contemporary relevance is clear.

The Bluest Eye made national headlines in February, after a school board in Wentsville, Missouri, near St. Louis, rescinded their vote to remove the book from school libraries within the district after it was challenged by parents. Board members reversed the decision after pushback and a class action filed by two students represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, as reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Book banning, though seemingly on the rise in communities around the United States, has, in my experience, somewhat of a Streisand effect, meaning the attempt to hide or remove information inadvertently draws more attention to it. That theory played out earlier this year in Tennessee, when Maus, a Pulitzer-prize-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust, became a bestseller on Amazon after being removed from school curriculum by the McMinn County School Board.

The Bluest Eye made the American Library Associations Top 10 Most Challenged Books of 2021 list, though Morrisons work frequently appears on lists of challenged materials.

In an afterword written in 1993 that is included with my edition of The Bluest Eye, Morrison offers a candid reflection on what her goals were in writing the book and how well she did and did not achieve those goals. She breaks down her deliberate use of language, both to present writing that is indisputably black and to evoke certain reactions from readers.

Implicit in her desire was racial self-loathing, Morrison writes. And twenty years later I was still wondering about how one learns that. Who told her? Who made her feel that it was better to be a freak than what she was?

Though first published in 1970, the contemporary relevance of The Bluest Eye is clear. The notion of representation as interrogated by Morrison in the novel is one still actively questioned today, as evidenced through use of hashtags such as #RepresentationMatters, which is affixed to more than one million posts on the social media app Instagram.

I focused, therefore, on how something as grotesque as the demonization of an entire race could take root inside the most delicate member of society: a child; the most vulnerable member: a female, Morrison writes in her afterword.

Toni Morrison was an award-winning American novelist and died in 2019 at the age of 88. Her first novel, The Bluest Eye was originally published by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, in 1970.

Ashlyn OHara can be reached at ashlyn.ohara@peninsulaclarion.com.

Off the Shelf is a bimonthly literature column written by the staff of The Peninsula Clarion that features reviews and recommendations of books and other texts through a contemporary lens.

Go here to read the rest:

Off the Shelf: Reckoning with a challenged author in times of censorship - Kenai Peninsula Online

The future of abortion law in the U.S. hinges on the forthcoming ruling in a Supreme Court case, Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, but the pro-life movement must begin gearing up to fight another insidious foeBig Tech censorship.

Organizations standing for the sanctity of life are well aware of the uphill battle they face.

The prominent anti-abortion group Live Action had its content censored online long before the docket put the Supreme Courts 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion nationwide in the crosshairs.

In 2019, social media platform Pinterest added Live Actions website to its blacklist of banned sites. The blacklisting meant users were unable to link to Live Actions content or post it on Pinterest.

The Daily Signal reported that after Live Action attempted to appeal the ban, Pinterest took things a step further and permanently banned its account, claiming the organization violated Pinterests misinformation policies.

Andrew Moore, digital and creative director at pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, says his organization also has been hit by Big Tech censorship on several occasions.

In 2017, Twitter prevented SBA List from running an ad featuring a pro-life quote by Mother Teresa, claiming our ad violated their policy on promoting the sale of health and pharmaceutical products, Moore said in a statement to The Daily Signal.

In 2020, citing a factually incorrect fact-check by the Dispatch, Facebook banned our ads stating that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support late-term abortion. Meanwhile, Big Abortion was permitted to run comparable ads without any restrictions.

The examples of Big Tech censorship of pro-life causes are innumerable. But what it all leads back to is that Big Tech is hostile to the anti-abortion movement and has openly thrown its considerable weight behind leftist pro-abortion causes.

That isnt really shocking. Its an open secret that platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter are run by leftists whose sensibilities align more with rabid pro-abortionists.

Where this is likely to become an issue is when pro-abortion activists and their kindred spirits in the Silicon Valley hubs of Big Tech see Roe pared back or even struck down by the high court. A ruling is expected in late June.

The doomsaying surrounding a possible end to Roe already has the far left reeling. Its not hard to imagine a scenario in which the tech titans would push even harder to censor dissenting voices seeking to end or restrict abortion across the country.

Moore says Susan B. Anthony List is expecting a new wave of censorship.

We are prepared for a crackdown on any messaging on abortion that does not fit the narrative of Planned Parenthood and their numerous allies in Silicon Valley, he said, adding:

If the Supreme Court hands the question of abortion back to the people through their legislatures, Big Abortion will stand to have everything to lose. This new reality will motivate their friends in Big Tech to enact even more draconian measures.

As a silver lining, pro-life conservatives are at least aware that censorship will occur and have time to prepare. Pro-abortion forces already have shown their hand, so the pro-life movement knows what to expect if Roe is struck down.

Conservatives should demand transparency and accountability from Big Tech companies thatcensor them. The tech titans shouldnt have the power to hide behind shadowy algorithms and selective enforcement as they repeatedly remove pro-life content.

Recent bills in Georgia and Florida provide a model for consumer protections at the state level. The Georgia legislation has a provision under which Big Tech companies would be forced to provide a report on how frequently they censor content and why they took action. That would give users proof that theyd been censored.

But even if the online gatekeepers prevent pro-life messages from reaching a digital audience, pro-lifers can still take the movement offline.

If Big Tech increases their censorship of pro-life speech in a post-Roe America, pro-life Americans must step up by fostering person-to-person communications, through word of mouth, email, text, and alternative messaging, and social media platforms that have more respect for freedom of speech, Moore said.

The biggest pro-life event each year is the March for Life. Tens of thousands of Americans dedicated to protecting the unborn gather each year in Washington, D.C., to make it clear that life matters.

As it becomes more likely Roe will be struck down, or at least curtailed, the March for Life has begun spinning off marches in states such as Connecticut and California. Pro-life conservatives should attend these marches and organize their own, free from the censoring power of Big Tech.

The radical left will use every trick it has to keep abortion unrestricted, but the pro-life movement ultimately will win. Big Tech can try, but life wont be censored.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and well consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular We Hear You feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

View original post here:

Big Abortion's Big Tech Allies Aim to Censor Pro-Lifers. They Won't Win. - Daily Signal

Did you know that, according to Mr. Dictionary, corruption is defined as dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery?

And a bribe is defined by Mr. Dictionary as the act of persuading (someone) to act in ones favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.

Meanwhile, Mr. Dictionary also says that censorship is the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, and information that is considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

That begs the questions, why is something that is politically unacceptable included in the definition and who determines what is politically unacceptable? And why am I referring to corruption, bribery and censorship all in the same article?

Its really quite simple. As you can see, Mr. Dictionary ties corruption to those that are in power. It ties bribery to the inducement of corruption. And it ties politics to censorship and security, tying both of those to those in power.

Now, as you are aware, the media is considered the fourth pillar of democracy. Not only does it have to be transparent and unbiased but it also bears the responsibility of educating the masses and the freedom to propagate a variety of opinions. It is THE platform for public discussion and exchange of opinions.

Our founding fathers created an executive, legislative and judicial branch of government for the purpose of each balancing out the others, in a system of checks and balances.

Of course, because they knew how important free speech and freedom of the press was, Im guessing that they might have considered govermentalizing a media branch. But, had they done so, we would not have freedom of the press or any freedom for that matter.

After all, the only way to promote freedom of the press is to keep your fingers off of it. Plus they also had intimate knowledge of the power of the press because they used the media to help create the American Revolution.

So you could say that freedom of the press is what enabled Americans to create America. And without it, there would be no America.

But today censorship is all the rage.

So lets once again look at the definition of censorship: It is the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, and information that is considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

What if someone had published, in advance, the plans for the June 6, 1944 Normandy, France, WWII, D-Day, allied invasion? That would have been a major problem.

To solve the problem you dont censor the press. You improve your security measures.

Today, of course, it would have been used as an excuse to censor.

But lets once again remember that Mr. Dictionary ties corruption to those that are in power, it ties bribery to the inducement of corruption and it ties politics and those in power to censorship and security.

One of Americas most prominent politicians had this to say: I weep for the liberty of my country when I see . . . . . that corruption has been imputed to many members of the House of Representatives, and the rights of the people have been bartered for promises of office.

Who said that? President Andrew Jackson and yet, it is so appropriate for today.

(Kevin Holten is the executive producer of Special Cowboy Moments and Wild Rides on RFD-TV and the Cowboy Channel and the creator of Wild Rides Television, debuting in January 2023. He is a native of Wildrose.)

See original here:

The fourth pillar of democracy: the press - The Journal - Journaltrib

IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

#VelshiBannedBookClub: Sometimes books are banned because of the words, the idea, or the author. In this case its all 3.04:58

Now Playing

Vladimir Kara-Murza: Every independent television network in Russia has been shut down..this war of censorship is complete07:40

UP NEXT

Former U.N. High Commissioner: I have very little doubt people will be prosecuted for war crimes07:00

U.S. Energy Secretary: Is it worth paying a bit more for your gas to not finance this bloody war in Ukraine?05:47

Velshi: We must not stand by as the people of Ukraine - and their freedom - perish03:23

David Miliband on war crimes in Ukraine: Accountability can be slow but its essential03:54

Young People in Ukraine Open Up about how the War has caused a rift in their families06:36

Russias oil and energy industry will deteriorate without EU support: Daniel Yergin04:31

Velshi: Its not okay to look away. Its not enough to say never again04:52

Jane Harman: I think the UN is feckless, Ill say it04:54

Ukrainian MP reacts to Bucha massacre: I cannot get those images out of my head.07:24

On Assignment: NBC Reporters Talk Challenges of Covering the War in Ukraine07:26

Fmr. Estonian President: If you dont respond now, you will be responding when they attack NATO07:18

The life & dealings of an Oligarch trusted by both Russia & Ukraine05:24

Lt. Col (Ret.) Alexander Vindman: Its a travesty that the U.S. is not doing more for Ukraine05:04

Ali Velshi on Lvivs centuries-long history, drifting through war, conflict and empires05:42

Ukrainian opposition party leader Kira Rudik: We want Putin to be prosecuted in Ukraine05:01

Lviv was once a tourist center, now its a humanitarian hub, says citys deputy mayor04:51

Velshi: For some still holding onto a semblance of normalcy in Ukraine, air raid sirens bring life to a halt05:16

We won this battle for Kyiv, Im sure well win the big battle: Ukrainian MP05:33

Vladimir Kara-Murza is a Russian opposition politician, author, and historian who has twice suffered sudden, severe illnesses he believes were brought on by deliberate poisonings while in Moscow as retribution for his speaking out against Russian human rights abuses and lobbying for U.S. sanctions. He tells Ali Velshi that A false reality has been created by the Putin regime here in Russia and a total blackout on information about the invasion of Ukraine. However, despite knowing the dangers of speaking out, Vladimir Kara-Murza is continuing to voice his opposition. This is where I have to be.April 10, 2022

#VelshiBannedBookClub: Sometimes books are banned because of the words, the idea, or the author. In this case its all 3.04:58

Now Playing

Vladimir Kara-Murza: Every independent television network in Russia has been shut down..this war of censorship is complete07:40

UP NEXT

Former U.N. High Commissioner: I have very little doubt people will be prosecuted for war crimes07:00

U.S. Energy Secretary: Is it worth paying a bit more for your gas to not finance this bloody war in Ukraine?05:47

Velshi: We must not stand by as the people of Ukraine - and their freedom - perish03:23

David Miliband on war crimes in Ukraine: Accountability can be slow but its essential03:54

Continue reading here:

Vladimir Kara-Murza: Every independent television network in Russia has been shut down...this war of censorship is complete - MSNBC

The rapper Lowkey, speaking at a rally in support of the persecuted journalist Julian Assange.

For more than a decade, Lowkey has been regarded as an enemy by Israels lobbying network.

Back in 2011, the right-wing Jewish Chronicle described the London-based rappers ability to reach a young audience as a potential nightmare.

Judging by more recent attacks against Lowkey, it would seem that his determination to raise awareness about how Palestinians live under an apartheid system has indeed kept Israels supporters awake at night.

Unable to find flaws in his arguments, the lobby has told lies about him.

An example of how he has been deliberately misquoted came after he made a live appearance on BBC radio in 2017.

He performed Letter to the 1%, a track pledging solidarity with victims of the globalized cosa nostra. Despite obviously referencing the Sicilian mafia, The Jewish Chronicle falsely charged that he had uttered the anti-Semitic phrase kosher nostra.

Due to a threatened lawsuit, the newspaper published a retraction.

The smear campaign against Lowkey has stepped up a gear over the past six months.

In December 2021, the rapper was booked for a gig in Londons Jazz Cafe. The venue came under pressure to call off the show, which celebrated the 10th anniversary of his album Soundtrack to the Struggle.

And in March this year, Lowkey was scheduled to speak at a conference organized by Britains National Union of Students (NUS), marking its centenary.

As soon as the lineup for the event was announced, the journalist Theo Usherwood wrote a series of tweets.

Usherwood, political editor with the radio station LBC, highlighted comments made by Lowkey about how the mainstream media was weaponizing the Jewish heritage of Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, in order to stave off questions about far-right groups in Ukraine.

Although Lowkeys analysis was based on demonstrable facts, Usherwood described it as theorizing.

Following Usherwoods tweets, The Daily Mail, one of Britains most widely read newspapers, published an article on the event to which Lowkey had been invited.

The article featured comments from Nina Freedman, who heads the Union of Jewish Students. She claimed that Lowkey had spread conspiracies about Jewish students, 9/11 and the war in Ukraine.

Although Freedman was quoted at length, the article did not elaborate on the conspiracies she had in mind.

It also did not mention that the Union of Jewish Students is financed by the Israeli embassy in London, as an investigation by Al Jazeera has revealed.

The NUS was vilified by the Campaign Against Antisemitism another Israel lobby group over how it responded to complaints about the invitation to Lowkey.

The NUS recommended that people who took umbrage at Lowkeys views could avoid listening to him and even offered a safe space where they could go during his appearance. Yet the Campaign Against Antisemitism distorted that offer as a suggestion that the Jewish students literally segregate themselves.

Some elected politicians even got involved in efforts to bully the NUS.

Andrew Percy, a member of the British Parliament, described the offer of a safe space to offended students as sinister. He called on Larissa Kennedy, president of the NUS, to resign.

Another MP Robert Halfon contended that Britains Equalities and Human Rights Commission should investigate the NUS for what he alleged was institutional anti-Semitism.

Both Percy and Halfon have held senior positions with Conservative Friends of Israel, a pressure group inside Britains ruling party.

The NUS capitulated to the pressure.

Lowkey was dropped from the conference to which he was invited. Instead, it was proposed that he could have a role in a fringe event marking the NUS centenary.

When Lowkey refused to accept that proposal, the NUS claimed dishonestly that he had simply pulled out of the conference.

The bullying did not go unchallenged.

The group Palestine Action best known for smashing up Israeli weapons factories protested against how Lowkey had been canceled by scaling the roof of the venue where the NUS celebrated its 100th birthday.

According to Palestine Action, a number of students active in the NUS took part in that protest.

Speaking to The Electronic Intifada, Lowkey pointed out that Akehursts group is known to work with Israels government.

The calls for censorship which have been opposed by the actor Mark Ruffalo, the rapper Wretch 32 and the rock star Roger Waters among many others are ultimately an own goal, Lowkey added.

Artists and musicians should never have to fear threats to their livelihood or person for the music they make, he added. We will not be silenced on Palestine. Not now, not ever.

Kit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions. Twitter: @KitKlarenberg.

Continue reading here:

Lobby scores own goal with attempts to censor Lowkey - The Electronic Intifada