The establishment media have settled a new motto: If we dont cover it, it didnt happen.The uniform silence of the supposed standard-bearers of journalism in response to last weeks release of another Hunter Biden video confirms the corrupt medias adoption of this maxim.

On Wednesday, The Daily Mail first broke the story that it had obtained a copy of a video showing a naked Hunter Biden telling a prostitute that in the summer of 2018 he nearly overdosed during a drug-laden binge in Las Vegas. After coming to, a Russian woman, Hunters drug dealer, and two of the dealers associates remained in the Vegas penthouse, he said, and Hunter later discovered his laptop missing.

I think hes the one that stole my computer, Hunter told the prostitute. I think the three of them, the three guys that were like a little group. The dealer and his two guys, I took them everywhere. They have videos of me doing this. They have videos of me doing crazy f-cking sex f-cking, you know, the video posted by The Daily Mail showed Hunter saying. My computer, I had taken tons of like, just left like that cam on, Hunter continued, and somebody stole it during that period of time.

In response, the prostitute asked Hunter if he worried the Russian thieves would try to blackmail him. Yeah, in some way yeah, Hunter replied, noting his father was running for president, and that I talk about it all the time.

While BBC monitoring of Russian media reported that by Thursday all three Russian primetime TV news stations had focused on the newly released video of President Bidens son, American legacy networks and print outlets ignored the story entirely, even while reporting on the upcoming auction of Hunter Bidens artwork and concerns over influence-peddling.

Coverage of the story remained mainly limited to Fox News and conservative media outlets. While Newsweek ran a piece on the tape, the articles focus was more on how conservatives were reacting to the news than on the national security implications flowing from the video.

After providing a synopsis of The Daily Mail article, the Newsweek article pivoted, stating, A number of conservative commentators and lawmakers are discussing the Mailreport on social media. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee shared the article and referred toprominent Democratic lawmakersinvolved in the impeachment of former PresidentDonald Trump.

Screengrabs of tweets from Huckabee, Mollie Hemingway, Nick Adams, and Liz Wheeler followed, as if the importance lay not in the national security risk revealed, but in conservatives response to the video. But as pundit and law professor Jonathan Turley noted, The Daily Mail story is major news from any standpoint. Turley continued:

Either the Presidents son admitted that Russians have blackmail material on him or the media (or others) have created a fake videotape and falsely framed Biden. One would expect, if it is the latter, that the Biden team will be announcing a lawsuit today. However, like the coverage in most major news outlets, there are only the familiar sound of crickets.

Turley is correct, but understates the significance of the video: If authentic, the video reveals national security risks extending much beyond Russians having blackmail material on the presidents son.

First, given the emails and text messages saved on the MacBook that Hunter abandoned at a Delaware repair shop, it is extremely likely the second laptop (the stolen Vegas one) provided the Russians blackmail material on Joe Biden concerning the Big Guy and the pay-to-play scandal under which the elder Biden reportedly received a 10 percent cut.

Second, given how Hunter says the computer was stolen, questions abound over whether Russian operatives had gotten close to Hunter and, if so, what else they may have learned besides what was contained on the laptop.

Third, the incident raises serious concerns about the strength of American intelligence agencies. Did our intelligence communities know of the existence of this video before the Daily Mail published it? Were they aware of the stolen laptop? Do they know who stole the laptop and whether they were Russian agents? Do they know the extent of damaging material in the hands of our adversaries? Did they brief Joe Biden and his national security team on their findings?

The potential blackmailing of Hunter Biden pales in comparison to the real national security risks revealed by the videos, yet the corrupt media couldnt care less.

That the media is not questioning the authenticity of the video indicates they both believe the videos are real and know a repeat of their performance in October 2020 wont fly in the publics eye. That time, in response to The New York Posts release of similar videos, the corrupt press and intelligence officials spun the video as misinformation long enough to squelch the story, get The New York Post de-platformed, and prop up Joe Bidens candidacy until election day.

So the only option for a press wishing to protect President Biden is to ignore the story.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

See the rest here:

What To Make Of The Media Blackout Of The Latest Hunter ...

The crux of the problem with deplatforming: when its good, its excellent; and when its bad, its dangerous.

Credit: Yelber Groeneveld (CC BY-NC 2.0)A faded poster showing Donald Trump and Alex Jones of Infowars on a street in Tbilisi, Georgia, February 2, 2018.

Deplatforming works has, in recent months, become a popular slogan on social media. When a widely reviled public figure is booted from a social media platform or a television channel, Twitter users repeat the phrase as a truism. And, indeed, there is evidence to support the claim that taking away someones digital megaphone can effectively silence them, or significantly reduce their influence.

After Twitter and Facebook permanently banned Donald Trump in January, for example, there was a noticeable and quantifiable drop in online disinformation. In 2016 Twitter took the then-unprecedented step of banning Milo Yiannopoulos, a notorious provocateur and grifter who disseminated hate speech and disinformation. Yiannopoulos tried vainly to mount a comeback, but never recovered from the loss of his bully pulpit. It appears his 15 minutes of fame are well over.

Alex Jones, the prominent conspiracy theorist and Infowars founder, was booted from multiple platforms in 2018 for violating rules against hate speech, among other things. Jones disseminated disgusting conspiracy theories like the claim that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax perpetrated to curtail gun rights, thus re-victimizing the parents of children who had been shot and killed at the Connecticut elementary school. His rants spawned fresh conspiracies about other mass shootings, like the one at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, which he said was staged by crisis actors. Jones boasted that banning him from mainstream platforms would only make him stronger. The more Im persecuted, the stronger I get, he said. But three years later, his name has almost disappeared from the news cycle.

Experts on online hate speech, misinformation, and extremism agree that kicking extremist haters off platforms like Facebook and YouTube significantly limits their reach.

According to one recent study, far right content creators who were kicked off YouTube found they were unable to maintain their large audience on BitChute, an alternative video platform that caters to extremists. Another study found that a far-right user who is deplatformed simultaneously by several mainstream social media platforms rapidly loses followers and influence. In other words, toxic influencers who are forced off mainstream social media do have the option of migrating to secret platforms that specialize in hosting extremists, but if they are not on YouTube they will be starved of new targets to radicalize and recruit.

The removal of a Yiannopoulos or a Jones from the quasi-public sphere can be a huge relief to the people they target. However, I am not convinced that censorship is an effective tactic for social change. Nor do I believe that it is in our best interests to entrust social media corporations with the power to moderate our discourse.

The negative effects of deplatforming have not been studied as thoroughly as the positive effectswhich is not surprising, given that the phenomenon is only a few years old. But there are a few clear possibilities, like the creation of cult-like followings driven by a sense of persecution, information vacuums, and the proliferation of underground organizingsuch as the organized harassment campaigns that are organized by incel (involuntarily celibate) communities on sites like 4Chan and then taken to more central platforms like Twitter.

Substack, the subscription newsletter platform, now hosts several deplatformed people who are thriving, like gender critical activist and TV writer Glen Linehan (who was kicked off Twitter for harassing transgender people), or Bari Weiss, the self-proclaimed silenced journalist who claimed in her public resignation letter from The New York Times that her colleagues had created a work environment that was hostile to her. Substack allows the author to set the terms for their newsletter by deciding on the subscription price, and whether theyd like the company to assign them an editor. The company has also been clear about its views on content moderation, with which I largely agree: free speech is encouraged, with minimal content moderation. My concern is that newsletters facilitate the creation of a cult following, while giving writers with a persecution complex a place to join forces in a self-congratulatory, circular way.

Of course, even Substack has its limits: I doubt that the platform would be happy to host Alex Jones or Donald Trump.

Deplatforming can also have a damaging impact on fragile democracies.

In early June Nigerian president Muhammadu Buhari issued a threat, via his Twitter account, that he would punish secessionists in the Biafra region. Twitter decided the threat violated its policies and removed the tweet. In response, the Nigerian government blocked access to the social media company indefinitely and said those who circumvented the ban would be subject to prosecutiona situation that is, as of this writing, ongoingalthough the government says it will restore access in a few days. Nigerian businesses are suffering from the ban, while those who do find a way to tweet risk arrest. This is a salutary example that illustrates how a social media companys ostensibly righteous decision to censor world leaders can backfire.

The first time I heard the term deplatforming, it was used to describe student-led boycotts of guest speakers invited to campus. The mediator in these situations is the university administration, which responds to the demands of enrolled, tuition-paying studentswho should have the ultimate say in who comes to speak at their university. But social media platforms are large multinational corporations. As I argue in my recent book, making corporations the gatekeepers for acceptable expression is deeply problematic.

In cases when the social media platform acts as an intermediary between external forces and an individual, the resulting scenario can resemble mob rule.

Chris Boutt, who runs a YouTube channel about mental health issues called The Rewired Soul, experienced the mob rule scenario firsthand. Boutt references pop culture in his videos about mental health and addiction, in which he talks about his own experience, often using illustrative examples from the world of YouTube influencers. He attracted angry detractors who believed he was causing harm by speculating about the mental health of popular YouTube stars. In an effort to silence Boutt, his critics attacked him in their own videos, which ultimately resulted in his receiving death threats.

Everything I did was from a good place, he told me during a recent conversation. In their mind, I was so dangerous that I should not be able to speak. So thats where my concerns with deplatforming come in, when you get a mob mentality [combined with] misinformation. He added: Im not a big fan of the court of public opinion. Boutt says that his angry critics efforts to get him deplatformed included dislike bomb campaigns, whereby users mass-dislike videos in an effort to trick the YouTube algorithm. According to Boutt, the tactic worked: His channel is no longer financially viable.

Mobs who take matters into their own hands, manipulating recommendation algorithms to get someone removed from a platform, have been around for a long time. In recent years, however, they have become more sophisticated; meanwhile, the publics understanding of how platforms work has increased.

According to one recent Vice report there is a cottage industry of professional scammers who exploit Instagrams policies to get individuals banned by making fraudulent claims against them. Want to get someone kicked off Instagram? Pay a professional to report them (falsely) for using a fake identity on their profile. Anyone can be targeted by these tactics. Repressive governments, for example, target the Facebook accounts of journalists, democracy activists and marginalized communities worldwide.

So here is the crux of the problem with deplatforming: when its good, its excellent; and when its bad, its dangerous. Deftly removing noxious propagandists is good. Empowering ordinary people to silence a common enemy by manipulating an algorithm is not good. Silencing marginalized activists fighting repressive governments is very, very bad.

Finally: Is censorship really a meaningful strategy for social change? Surely the most effective means of routing hate speech is to tackle its root causes rather than hacking at its symptoms. The study of online misinformation and extremism are currently hot topics, the darlings of funders in the digital space, with millions of dollars doled out to academic institutions. Certainly, online hate speech is an important area of study, but the intense focus on this one issue can come at the expense of other urgent social issueslike online privacy, the declining right to free expression worldwide, and the ongoing struggles against repressive governments.

I suggest that deplatforming should be viewed and wielded with extreme caution, rather than presented as a means of fixing the internetor, more importantly, our societies.

See more here:

The delights and the dangers of deplatforming extremists ...

Radical Calvinist Douglas Wilson may be a pain in the backside, but Google should not have kicked him off their apps

Readers who have been with this blog for a while may recall a dust-up I had with Pastor Douglas Wilson of Moscow, Idaho, over the way he and his church handled an instance of sexual misconduct and abuse. It is more than fair to say that Wilsons bomb-throwing Calvinism is not my jam. In fact, thats a massive understatement. But Ive got to stand up for Wilson and his churchs associate pastor, Toby Sumpter, in a matter of great importance to all religious people, both conservative and progressive, and to anybody who stands far outside the mainstream making radical critiques.

Heres the story:

With coronavirus restrictions forcing the closure of church gatherings worldwide, and authorities threatening to punish those who continue to attend public worship, the Christian church has become more dependent on the internet than ever.

Churches are now employing popular social media and video sharing platforms to conduct their services and broadcast their sermons. But how will the tech giants and social media outlets respond, especially considering their tendency to censor unapproved messages?

Well, it would appear straight-up banning churches isnt off the table for some platforms, as a church in Moscow, Idaho discovered last week.

On Friday, Google suspended Christ Churchs app from the Google Play store after accusing the pastors of a lack of sensitivity and/or capitalizing on the current coronavirus pandemic.

The church received a notice from the platform, stating: We dont allow apps that lack reasonable sensitivity towards or capitalize on a natural disaster, atrocity, conflict, death, or other tragic event.

Your app has been suspended and removed due to this policy issue, the notice added.

Heres what the church posted on Twitter in response:

The story I link to above lists three sermons two by Wilson, and one by Sumpter as possibly at fault. I dont have time to listen to all three, but I did spend over an hour listening to the Sumpter one, and the second Wilson one, and taking notes.

Heres the Sumpter sermon, titled, A Message On Plagues:

The sermon is a standard one for traditional Christianity. Preaching on verses from the Old Testament book of Joel, Sumpter says that Christians should regard the coronavirus as a call to repentance. He says that Joel tells us that the greatest punishment of this plague is that Gods people are not allowed to gather for worship (Sumpter is preaching to a congregation watching by livestream). Hes not calling on Christians to defy the authorities, but is saying that God is sending us a message about the way we were living prior to the plague.

The fact that we are all stuck at home, and not able to gather for worship, is a sign of Gods judgment because we have not used the gifts of God to praise Him.

Does it break your heart that you cant worship God, that you cant gather with his people or not? asks Sumpter. He adds that this plague is a test of faith. God is testing us to see if we will praise him in hard times as well as in good.

He says if youre not giving God thanks for all He has given us mac and cheese, paper towels then you are failing. Hes asking us if we will praise him even in times of suffering.

Like I said, this is standard Christianity. A church that does not read this plague as a call to repentance is a church that doesnt know how to read the Bible. This isnt a Calvinism thing; this is straightforward Christianity.

As I said, I listened to one of the two Wilson sermons. Doug Wilson is the kind of pastor who preaches and writes as if he believes that pugnacity is next to godliness. He is a powerful rhetorician, and can be quite funny but humility is not his strong suit. One his blog, which is how I know his work, he comes across as someone who is more interested in owning the libs heretics than in converting hearts and minds. I tell you this up front to let you know that I am the sort of Christian who, though a conservative, is not favorably disposed to listen to a message from Doug Wilson.

Here is the sermon I listened to. Its from late March:

This sermon has a lot more pepper than Sumpters, and is probably what triggered Google. Still, it is a standard message in traditional Christianity. Wilsons basic argument is that the plague is a call to repentance and he warns that we dont want to acknowledge that. He points out that in the Exodus story, the plagues God sent against Egypt to compel Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go only hardened Pharaohs heart. Wilson says that all of us should be looking into our own hearts now, to root out the corruption we find there. And part of that corruption is idolatry.

We need to stop having faith in the things we once thought were so secure, Wilson says. God is shaking everything so that we would have faith in Him.

How is that not true? Its certainly true and all of us need to hear that.

So what probably got Wilson in trouble? In this sermon, he condemns, and condemns in strong language, abortion and gay marriage as sins that require repentance. Now, I wish he had listed sins that are more likely to be committed by people in Moscow, Idaho, and in the rest of Red America. God is no doubt angry over the widespread use of pornography in our country. Think of all the pridefulness, the selfishness, the hardness of heart towards our neighbor all things that you find in Red America too. Think of all the disordered heterosexual lust. And the warmaking this country has fostered on innocent people. I dont disagree with Wilson about abortion and homosexuality, and I am sure that he would agree with me about these other things, or most of these things, being sinful. I wish, though, that he would have called out us conservatives too. This is not a time for us to fall prey to self-righteousness.

Heres where I think Wilsons sermon was radical, in a powerful and prophetic way. Toward the end, after talking about hardness of heart, he mentions that the Japanese did not surrender after seeing one of their cities (Hiroshima) vaporized. It took a second city being obliterated (Nagasaki) before they gave up. Wilson says that we Christians ought not to be praying for relief from the plague, but rather, We should be asking God to do what it takes to bring us to repentance.

Dont pray that God will let up. Dont pray that God will lighten up, he says. Pray that God will press through and do what it takes to get us to sign the surrender papers.

He goes on to say that all of this suffering will have been for nothing if we only return to how we were living before. If the churches are full at Easter, he says (remember, this sermon was given before the holy day), that will be a disaster. If people are going to church for the same reason theyre going to Costco, then were simply waiting for Nagasaki.

He goes on to say that if breaking the United States of America, in her pride and insolence is the way to get rid of gay marriage, then Christians should welcome it. Says Wilson, of abortion, I would rather live in a poor broken country that didnt kill babies than in a rich, insolent once that does.

Thats a great line. He also says that the problem is not that our elected representatives fail to represent us. The problem is they represent us well, he says. And that should be part of our repentance.

Now look: you can fault Wilson for focusing on this sermon on gay marriage and abortion, or you can fault him (as I do) for focusing on these sins and not naming others that strike closer to home among his congregation, and those outside his congregation who look to him for leadership. But the idea that America has to repent is powerful and true. Had a progressive pastor spoken of the sins of greed and violence, for example, it would have been just as true, and just as necessary to hear though it would also have been preferable had that progressive pastor spoken to the sins that are closer to the hearts and lives of progressive people, and not just called out those who are unlike his congregation.

My point is this: whatever my conflicts, theological and otherwise, with Doug Wilson and his circle, I profited from hearing these sermons. I was challenged by them, in a good way. Did I agree 100 percent with them? No I did not. Do I believe that these sermons ought to be freely available on Googles platform for people to hear? Absolutely.

We dont know precisely why Google booted Wilsons churchs app, but listening to Wilsons sermon (more than Sumpters), its not hard to guess why. So, even though it probably makes him cringe to have Rod Dreher stand up for him, and believe me, it makes Rod Dreher cringe to do it Im going to stand up for him.

First, if Google really did boot Christ Church over Wilsons comments connecting abortion and gay marriage to the judgment of God, then they may well kick off the platform any number of Christian churches for holding those views. Few Christian churches are led by a pastor who is as combative as Doug Wilson, but if Doug Wilson has lost his platform over this, no traditional Christian church is safe.

This, by the way, is not the states doing; its Googles, which, as a private company, has a right to decide who it wants on its platform. But dissident Christians, and political dissidents of all kinds, should be aware that this is an incredible amount of power to wield. Those who control access to Internet platforms control what can and cant be said on there.

Which leads me to my second point, one meant not only for right-of-center Christians. We should want to protect unpopular speakers and unpopular speech in the public square. It hardly needs saying that people in the Bay Area who censor Googles platform are bound to be more eager to silence right-wing radicals than left-wing radicals. But what if those right-wing radicals happen to say something true and important? Something that only they can see, and say? (The same is true of left-wing radicals.) It is true that a time of national crisis does call on us to be more prudent about what we say, and it certainly gives the state more power to control what is said in the public square. Theres no getting around that. To cite an extreme example, Britain in World War II could not have allowed Nazi propagandists to operate freely. Speech that is a direct threat to public safety and order may legitimately be suppressed.

But this is not that! Is this offensive speech? To many, yes. Doug Wilson has a special gift for making enemies, and he can be incredibly obnoxious. But at the risk of sounding like a fundamentalist liberal, what makes America great is that we have a political order that protects offensive speech. This is not pornography. This is theological, and maybe political, discourse. You dont have to like it to defend its right to exist, and to be heard.

Again, a time of national crisis is a time when we need to protect the contrarians and the wild-eyed prophets more than ever. In 1918, the US Government threw the socialist Eugene V. Debs into prison on sedition charges for a speech he gave opposing military conscription.It was wrong of the state to treat Debs that way. Thats not exactly the same thing as privately-owned Google deplatforming a bunch of hardcore Calvinists in Idaho, but you see the parallel. Google is using this crisis to exercise its immense power to silence voices it doesnt like.

What constitutes reasonable sensitivity? If you only follow a Bay Area secularists idea of reasonable sensitivity, then youd better throw out the entire Bible, which is not a warm and fuzzy self-help book. What does it mean to capitalize on a natural disaster [or] tragic event? Is drawing conclusions, even conclusions that offend some, the same as capitalizing? What if a speaker said that the pandemic crisis reveals the need for a communist revolution would that violate Googles standards?

It could be that Google deplatformed Team Wilson for reasons that are not apparent in these two sermons. But if these sermons are the cause of Googles act, then I read it as a clear warning to traditional Christians about how Big Tech is going to treat us in the future. Dont think for one second that disapproving of Doug Wilson and his radical churchs teachings is going to protect you, either.

UPDATE: Guys! I am not defending Doug Wilsons teaching or his behavior as leader of the Kirk. As I said at the top of this post, I got into a big online argument with him a few years ago when I criticized him for the way he handled sexual abuse within his community. I am only defending here his right to be heard, and in so doing, point out that even someone with whom I strongly disagree on many things can teach me something.

Read more:

Deplatforming Douglas Wilson - The American Conservative

Back in July, former President Trump bellied up to the bar in the Southern District of Florida and sued Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, as well as their respective CEOs, for tortious deplatforming. In his telling, the protections afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act transformed websites into agents of the government, magically turning all content moderation into censorship in violation of the First Amendment.

Section 230(c)(1) and 230(c)(2) were deliberately enacted by Congress to induce, encourage, and promote social medial companies to accomplish an objectivethe censorship of supposedly objectionable but constitutionally protected speech on the Internetthat Congress could not constitutionally accomplish itself.

Congress cannot lawfully induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.

Apparently, Zuck is president now. Dont forget to like, upvote, and fave!

Apart from the eleventy-seven other problems with this argument, theres the minor issue that the terms of service for each of these platforms require users to file all claims in San Francisco. Unsurprisingly, Twitters lawyers argue that this forum selection clause is binding upon Trump and the ragtag band of weirdos who have joined this suit as plaintiffs, including author Naomi Wolf and talkshow host Wayne Allyn Root.

On September 1 exactly one day after the plaintiffs bothered to effect actual service on the company Twitter moved to have the case transferred to the Northern District of California, writing:

The Twitter User Agreement requires that disputes relating to the use of Twitters services must be resolved in federal or state court in San Francisco, California. In particular, the User Agreement states that [a]ll disputes related to these Terms or Services will be brought solely in the federal or state courts located in San Francisco County, California, United States, and that the parties consent to personal jurisdiction and waive any objection as to inconvenient forum. Terms of Service at 9.

But Donald Trump has an answer for that one, and it is that he is actually the government.

Defendants Motion should be denied because the forum selection clause in Defendants TOS does not apply to Plaintiff, who at all times relevant to this dispute was the sitting President of the United States and the head of the Executive Branch of the federal government, he wrote.

Assume arguendo that Donald Trump is aware that he is no longer president. Yes, he did claim yesterday that Your Republican Presidential candidate won in a landslide. But let us err on the side of generosity and take it as a given that he knows that someone else is in the Oval Office this morning, tapping out boring tweets on the @POTUS handle the one Trump himself did not deign to use, preferring to humiliate and fire his underlings via the @realDonaldTrump account.

Relying on the Second Circuit holding in Knight First Amdt. Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. Trump, 928 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2019) that Trump could not block critics because he was using his account for official government business, Trumps lawyers argue that the account is now and forever a government entity and thus exempt from both the companys forum selection clause and its New Rules on Violence and Physical Harm.

One thing is undeniably clear in this case: Plaintiffs account was a government account, and not a private one when he was censored, Trumps lawyers argue, seemingly unaware that their client is now a civilian and was so on July 7, 2021 when the complaint was filed to vindicate his rights as a private citizen whose First Amendment Rights were being cruelly trampled by Jack Dorsey, Secretary of Vegan Meditation.

Note that this argument does not apply to any of the other plaintiffs. Sorry, Naomi, youll have to speak your truth about children forgetting how to smile over on Telegram.

The plaintiffs make a whole raft of equally strange arguments about the enforceability of Twitters forum selection clause, which has been routinely upheld in court, including an argument that California judges will simply throw up their hands in confusion if forced to interpret the state law violations the plaintiffs tacked onto their amended complaint to justify venue in Florida.

These include claims under the Florida Stop Social Media Censorship Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The social media law has been enjoined since July 1, i.e. before this case was even filed. Also in July, the Southern District of Florida dismissed a similar FDUTPA claim against Google. (No points will be awarded for guessing which sparklemagic libelslander lawyer filed that LOLsuit.)

But its fine, see, because look here at this footnote:

Violations of the SSMCA are deemed to be violations of FDUTPA as well; unless otherwise noted, henceforth the use of FDUTPA will necessarily encompass the SSMCA as well.

Also Twitter is like crack cocaine, so users cant give meaningful consent because theyre jonesing for a hit and are coerced into agreeing to the terms of service.

The total immersion that Defendant seeks to achieve on the part of its Users leads to a dependency that alters the relative bargaining positions of Defendant and those Users. Thus, even when Defendant prompts its Users to review its updated TOS, Defendant knows that its Users are dependent on its services and more than likely than not to accept its changes, whatever they may be.

Donald Trump needs his fix! Come on, @Jack, hook a government entity up!

Its all very confusing. Just remember that Twitter is the government, and cannot abridge poor Donald Trumps First Amendment rights. Also Trump is the government and cannot be bound by the normal rules of civil procedure. At the same time, Trump is not the government because he lives in Florida and has venue-specific rights under state laws, even ones that have been blocked by courts.

Sounds legit.

Trump v. Twitter[Docket via Court Listener]

Elizabeth Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

View original post here:

Trump Claims He And Twitter Are Both The Government In ...

Following years of controversy and open secrets about R. Kelly's horrifying treatment of women and girls, the disgraced R&B singer has been found guilty and convicted of racketeering and sex trafficking. His New York trial featured testimonies from many women who claim to have survived violent abuse and even imprisonment from Kelly, often starting when they were underage.

With Kelly finally convicted, the outcome of his case raises a key question of what will now happen to his music, which continues to stream on major platforms like Spotify and Apple Music, making somewhere in the millions in royalties each year, and frequently appearing in video content on social media. As streaming platforms, brands, record labels, and really any and all media companies that handle music determine what if anything should be done about Kelly's work, their approaches could set an important precedent for the many other artists accused or found guilty of abuse, moving forward in the #MeToo era.

Defenders of artists accused of abuse often condemn brands and streamers for any moves tocensorand violate these artists' "free speech" as if Spotify is the federal government or assert that these artists are "innocent until proven guilty." Kelly's conviction now pokes a significant hole in at least one of these arguments, and may openthe door for brands and music companies to take clear stances onwhat behaviors from artists aren't acceptable.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Then of course, there's theimportant distinction between the corporate policies of a streaming service like Spotify on whether to publicly promote an abusive artist's work, and the personal music consumption and preferences of individuals. In the long history of artists accused of harm and abuse, there have never beenone-size-fits-all solutions.

R. Kelly's contemporaries also accused of abuse

To understand what fate thatR. Kelly's music could face, it's wise to look at other artists who have been insimilarbut not necessarily equivalent situations. The severity of the accusations against Kelly, including rape and assault of often underage victims, are so horrifying that the idea of stepping away from his music in some form doesn't seem that far-fetched.

Other well-known, even alarmingly popular artists accused of abuse include Chris Brown, who pleaded guilty to felony assault of his then-girlfriend Rihanna in 2009, and has been accused of rape and violence by other women in the years since. He continues to feature on tracks with music legends like Drake, and create widely streamed singles, pretty much without a peep from Spotify or the other streaming giants and record labels that gleefully release his music.

The late XXXTentacion, who was killed in 2018, was accused of and admitted to strangling his pregnant then-girlfriendthe year earlier all while his wildly popular music continues to stream and generate millions in royalties for his estate to this day. And in2015, 6ix9ine pleaded guilty to the use of a child in a sexual performance, and has been charged and convicted of other crimes including racketeering and his role in a drive-by shooting. His songs and features on Nicki Minaj tracks continue to draw millions of streams.

Another artist, Ryan Adams, has been dropped by his record labels, and has struggled to put out new music since several women including Mandy Moore and Phoebe Bridgers accused him of emotional abuse in 2019. Still, Adams' existing musicand music he's released through his own PAX AM independent label, remains readily available on streaming platforms.

Marilyn Manson, accused of rape, grooming, and other jarring acts of sexual violence by several women, sings about the night he was arrested in a recent track on Kanye West's new album "Donda," streaming on music services without any issue. Just last year, Megan Thee Stallion accused Tory Lanez of shooting her in the foot and successfully obtained a restraining order against Lanez only for him to release a new album shortly after, continue to feature on popular tracks with some of the biggestnames in the industry,and appear on stage at music festivals like Rolling Loud, violating Megan's restraining orderagainst him in the process.

More famously, the late singer Michael Jackson faced numerous allegations of child sexual abuse in the 1990s that had all but faded from public consciousness for years before HBO's "Leaving Neverland" documentary released in 2019. The documentary led to significant backlash against Jackson and his surviving legacy and work, nearly 10 years after his death.

Before nearly all of these artists, Don McLean, who sang "American Pie" in 1971, was accused of intense emotional abuse by his wifelast year, and hisdaughter just this year. From a similar era as McLean, Phil Spector produced numerous albums and records for multiple artists including the Beatlesbefore being convicted of murdering a woman in 2003. Should the music produced by men accused of abuse also be reconsidered? Where should music companies and individuals begin to draw the line?

What's happened to the art of accused menbefore

For insight into how music streamers and brands might respond to R. Kelly's conviction, as well as other artists accused of misconduct, there are numerous past examples to revisit many involving Kelly himself. His music hasn't gone anywhere for those who actively seek it out for personal consumption. But there's an important difference between streaming platforms allowing users to privately listen to his music, and the active promotion of this music on radio stations, in DJ sets, in TV episodes and movies, or featuring on official, Spotify-curated playlists.

The New York Times reported that in recent years, Kelly's music has been "all but erased from the radio and other commercial placements, his high-profile concerts and record deals a thing of the past." Still, the Times found that Kelly's music remains a fixture in videos and social content among influencers on platforms like Tik Tok, ranking as one of the top 500 music artists by Chartmetric. Despite the widely shared #MuteRKelly social campaign created by Kenyette Tisha Barnes and other activists in 2017, Kelly's music has still had about 780 million audio streams in the U.S. since "Surviving R. Kelly" aired on Lifetime in 2019, and he continues to draw 5.2 million monthly listeners on Spotify, the Times reported.

Spotify has specifically addressed the misconduct allegations against Kelly before, although its response left many confused. In 2018, Spotify announced that it would take action against the singer's popular catalog of music, and instituted an awkward playlist-ban policy, which would remove music containing "hate speech" and music from artists who, like Kelly, had committed "hateful conduct" from its playlists.

However, some regarded Spotify's policy as toothless, because Kelly's music continued to stream on the platform. Others expressed confusion about the inconsistency of the ban, noting thatmany artists accused of "hateful conduct" which the platform had only nebulously defined weren't subject to the playlist-ban policy. In particular, critics named XXXTentacion, who was subsequently added to Spotify's playlist-ban list, but many other accused artists remain.

The playlist-ban policy also received criticism from those who pointed out that Kelly and other artists had only been accused of sexual misconduct and hadn't been found guilty as if all sexual abusers arereported to law enforcement and convicted. Overall, these myriad criticisms of Spotify's attempts at accountability for abusers and alleged abusers were enough to make the platform back down not overturning its policy, but no longer really publicizing it.

It's also worth noting that it's not just streaming platforms that are affected by revelations about abusive artists. For example, Kelly's song "I Think I Can Fly" initially featured in an episode of "The Goldbergs" spinoff show, "Schooled," but the song was pulled before the episode aired in 2019 in the wake of escalated controversy around Kelly.

Following the release of "Leaving Neverland," several brands, global radio stations, TV shows like "The Simpsons," and even city governments like Brussels took action in boycotting Jackson's legacy. Many canceled scheduled celebrations of the singer to mark the 10th anniversary of his death. Louis Vuitton pulled Jackson-inspired products planned for its 2019 collections, and gymnast Katelyn Ohashi removed Jackson's music and dance moves inspired by the artist from her floor routine at the 2019 PAC-12 Championships.

Responses and actions taken around artists who are accused of abuse are widely inconsistent, possibly because, among other reasons, many cases lack the now open-and-shut legal nature of R. Kelly's conviction. Ultimately, many brands and streamers seemconflicted about where to draw the line, or really, what they can and can't look the other way on without stoking controversy and backlash. Documentaries like"Surviving R. Kelly" and "Leaving Neverland" have made Kelly and Jackson's histories and allegations impossible tobe silent on. But in contrast,few big-name artists or activist movements have taken public stands against Chris Brown for the accusations against him, or Tory Lanez, for allegedly shooting Megan. 6ix9ine has yet to become the subject of a tell-all documentary.

Many brands and streamers are left to work out the calculus of what may lose them more money: platforming or promoting someone accused of abuse, or upsetting these artists' vengeful fan bases. And on an individual level, many consumers may feel similarlyconflicted, with some appalled by the behaviors of artists like Kelly, while still privately enjoying the music they've made.

The eternal debate: Artist vs. art

The debate about what to do with the art created by artists accused of abuse has been semi-recurring since 2017, when dozens of entertainment industry titans were very publicly accused of sexual misconduct.

Contrary to loud and proud right-wing talking points, private corporations ranging from social media platforms to music distributors are well within their legal rights to remove or at least not publicize content that conflicts with their values, if their values include, say, being opposed to sexual violence. But legal considerations aside, the philosophical question of whether artists, who are real human beings and as such often do real, horrible things, can be separated from their art. The answer to that question might vary pending who you ask.

For some people with the privilege of not having experienced sexual harassment or abuse, it might be easier to consume content created by an abuser without feeling triggered or devalued by it. It's certainly not wrong for individuals to be able to privately compartmentalize abusive artists from their art and enjoy it by themselves. Butthere will always be consumers who can't do thisand who shouldbe respected, too. The voices and demands of many survivors and advocates, for brands and corporations to find meaningful ways to take a stand against sexual violence and abusers, deserve to be heard.

That said, deplatforming isn't always simple in the age of the internet. As Variety's Jem Aswad points out, even if Spotify removed R. Kelly's music, or a movie streaming service somehow removed all work produced by Harvey Weinstein, their work would continue to be uploaded and distributed on other parts of the internet, and wouldn't just disappear. And frankly, none of these men produced these works alone, so those collaborators would become collateral damage if such works were removed.

Amazon's approach to hate speech or "hateful conduct" seems to be summed up by its inclusion of Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" on its marketplace, with all sales of the book apparently going directly to Jewish charities and organizations.

R. Kelly isn't the first artist to be accused of abuse or horrifying behavior, leaving companies and brands with serious decisions to make. His conviction isn't the first moment that's forced them to consider making a public statement or policy regarding the art created by sexual abusers.

But Kelly's conviction certainly injects credibility and legal validation into the demands of survivors calling for him and other abusers and alleged abusers to be deplatformed, or no longer publicly promoted. How brands respond to the outcome of Kelly's case could influence how they handle theart of abusive artists going forward but ultimately, how the public receives and experiences the art of abuserswill always vary from person to person.

Link:

What will happen to R. Kelly's music? Inside the push to deplatform abusive artists - Salon

Last week, the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones lost by default judgment two defamation lawsuits brought by parents of children killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, after he failed to comply with a judges demand for information. For years, Jones has repeatedly told his Infowars followers that the attack, which killed 20 children and six adults, was a hoax and a false flag run by crisis actors leading to harassment, stalking and death threats against the victims families. The case shows that the courts can be a powerful tool for combating disinformation and conspiracy campaigns and the online harassment they fuel.

The courts can be a powerful tool for combating disinformation and conspiracy campaigns.

This is good news because there is no shortage of support for disinformation and conspiracies in the United States. More than half of Americans believe in at least one conspiracy theory including unsupported speculation about who killed President John F. Kennedy and QAnon-fueled fictions about child trafficking. Rising conspiracy thinking has been enabled by social media and fueled by the easy spread of fake news, some of which comes from content producers, such as Jones, who use podcasts, viral memes and publicity stunts to insert fringe ideas into the mainstream.

The combination of broad online distribution of conspiracies and an already-receptive American audience was a recipe for a disinformation disaster even before Covid-19. But pandemic conditions have made matters worse. Conspiracy theories are psychologically rewarding during uncertain times because they offer easy, black-and-white explanations for complicated or inexplicable events, placing the blame on the orchestrated efforts of an elite few in ways that can make the world feel more stable. The insecurity and fear of the past 18 months have had devastating effects in that they have spawned the growth of conspiracies and increased their impact globally.

To make matters worse, recent conspiracy theories have been legitimized by elected leaders who say of certain allegations that they might be true. When conspiracies circulated that falsely alleged Democrats had manufactured the violence at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Idaho state Rep. Bryan Zollinger, a Republican, posted on social media that while he wasnt saying the theory was true, it was completely plausible. After then-President Donald Trump asserted that unknown Middle Easterners were mixed in with migrant caravans at the U.S. southern border, he later admitted there was no proof that any were at our border but noted there could very well be.

These tactics have challenged the very notion of the observed reality that people experience, making it harder to understand the line between fact and fiction and determine what is real and what is not. Conspiracies undermine belief in science, destabilize peoples sense of truth, fuel polarization and identify key enemies who are working against us. They can also mobilize violent action, as we have seen in recent conspiracy-driven attempts to save children from a supposed pedophile ring, or protect white populations from a purported immigrant invasion. A 2019 FBI intelligence bulletin noted that conspiracy theories are very likely inspiring domestic terrorists, and the bulletin anticipates this phenomenon will evolve and grow.

Given these conditions, it is not hard to see how widespread conspiratorial disinformation about the 2020 presidential election led to a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol. But while the attack was directly motivated by election fraud conspiracies and other false information, many of the attackers believe themselves to be the courageous revolutionary actors saving democracy. Conspiracies create fervent believers in false realities.

There are few options available for interrupting the spread of conspiracy theories. Attempts to refute them can backfire and strengthen individuals faith in false information. Logic or fact-based arguments dont work against conspiracy thinking, either, because even established facts are often read by believers as confirmation that someone is trying to hide the truth. More traditional counterextremism strategies are even less suited to addressing the harms caused by viral conspiracy theories. Law enforcement approaches align best with organized groups that can be monitored or infiltrated, not with conspiracy theories that spread virally online.

Online misinformation about election fraud declined 73 percent after Trump was banned from Twitter.

Removing the worst offenders from social media or other online platforms has helped reduce the spread of false information. The circulation of online misinformation about election fraud declined 73 percent, for example, after Trump was banned from Twitter after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. But de-platforming individual users is an endgame solution because it requires that offenders violate companies terms of service. By then, the disinformation is already out there causing harm.

The lack of effective counterstrategies means that we need every tool available to stop the creation, circulation and amplification of conspiracy theories and false information. Defamation lawsuits and other civil legal actions are proving to be one such strategy. Coming on the heels of other successful lawsuits demanding accountability from extremists who fomented harassment or violence and less than a month before the trial in the suit against two dozen white supremacist and extremist group leaders for allegedly plotting a conspiracy that led to violence at the Charlottesville rally successful legal action against a propagator of conspiracy theories sends a strong message that the courts are a serious option for challenging dangerous, false information.

The only thing better than stopping the unfettered spread of disinformation, propaganda and conspiracies would be to live in a world where no one produced it in the first place. But until that world arrives, the Sandy Hook school massacre lawsuit is a step forward in the fight to protect the one we live in now.

Cynthia Miller-Idriss is a professor in the School of Public Affairs and the School of Education at American University, where she directs the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL). Her most recent book is "Hate in the Homeland: The New Global Far Right."

See the original post:

Infowars' school shooting lies cost Alex Jones and put extremists on alert - MSNBC

ArchivesArchivesSelect Month October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 December 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 0

Originally posted here:

WAFA: Human rights organizations call on PayPal to end its digital discrimination in the occupied Palestinian territory IMEMC News - International...