Category Archives: Free Speech

One day after Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Greenes Twitter account was suspended over Covid-19 misinformation, Rand Paul announced that hes fed up with Big Tech. To emphasize his fist-shaking, he declared hed be joining a Donald Trump-backed video-streaming platform called Rumble.

Why Rumble? Adored by the far-right, Rumble is a Canadian video-sharing platform that launched in 2013 but saw serious growth during the Covid-19 pandemic: The companys monthly viewership soared from 1.6 million users in fall 2020 to 31.9 million by the end of 2021s first quarter. Its a bit of a mishmash of viral clips of cute animals doing funny things, political commentary, and conspiracy theories about where society is headed.

Although anti-vaccine propaganda runs rampant on Rumble, as does liberal disdain, it labels itself as a neutral platform, and it just keeps getting bigger. In May, Narya Capital invested in Rumble; Narya was co-founded by German-American billionaire Peter Thiel the Republican venture capitalist who co-founded PayPal, invested early in Facebook, and spent millions to fund Hulk Hogans bankrupting lawsuits against Gawker and author J.D. Vance, who followed up his memoir Hillbilly Elegy with a run for the Ohio Senate seat on a far-right ticket. Colt Ventures, the family office of former Trump adviser Darren Blanton, also invested at that time, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Former Trump administration lawyer Michael Ellis joined Rumble as its general counsel and corporate secretary in November. Around the same time, Russell Brand gave the platform a celebrity boost, coming aboard as a creator and agreeing to give the platform first access to all of his videos, as well as exclusive content.

On Dec. 1, Rumble announced plans to go public and claimed to be valued at $2.1 billion. Rumble is designed to be the rails and independent infrastructure that is immune to cancel culture, CEO Chris Pavlovski said in a press release about joining with NASDAQ. We are a movement that does not stifle, censor, or punish creativity and believe everyone benefits from access to a neutral network with diverse ideas and opinions. On Dec. 14, Donald Trump announced that his work-in-progress social media app, Truth Social, had partnered with Rumble.

Though Rumble is all about a free and open Internet, as Pavlovski would go on to say in his statement, it didthreaten to sue another YouTube competitor, Odysee, over a tweet that alleged Rumble misled its investors. While Odysee withdrew the statement in question as requested, it then posted what appears to be a screenshot of the cease-and-desist andtweeting again: We are very sorry for suggesting that Rumble would ever fake traffic to mislead their investors. There is nothing suspicious about their average user leaving after only 1 minute despite it being a website for long-form video content. We retract our prior tweet.

Now, Rumble is not the first social media platform to say they prioritize free speech over everything else, as Yotam Ophir an assistant professor in University at Buffalos communication department points out. Even Reddit kind of started as a company that tries to break the rules and get censorship off the map you know, until Charlottesville, which pushed reality back in their faces, he says. Weve seen it before and it usually ends badly. He brings up the likes of Parler and Gab, which lean heavily to the right. Im getting tired of hearing about all those freedom of speech heroes that are going to open the new platform that changes the rules only to learn a month from now that they cant actually do it because the lawsuits will start coming in, the public pressure will start coming in, and advertisers wont want to stay on a platform thats full of hate speech and misinformation.

Rumbles terms and conditions do state that the platform doesnt allow for videos that incite violence and utilize hate speech, but its unclear how loose their definitions may be and how strict they are about such moderation.

When asked how Rumble polices the spread of misinformation, particularly misinformation regarding vaccines and Qanon theories, a Rumble representative responded to Rolling Stone with an email that sort of skirts around the question. Unlike other platforms, Rumble doesnt amplify content by sharing it with groups outside of your followers, they write. Instead, we use a chronological feed that treats all uploads equally. This design removes the incentive to produce and amplify extreme content to gain views. In addition to our terms, we believe this approach creates a healthier society without resorting to editorial restrictions on content we disagree with. When a video posted on Rumble gets significant views (more than the follower count), in nearly all cases, it is not because of our platform but because people share the content on other websites and platforms. These platforms have algorithms incentivizing engagement and amplify content to a wider audience.

The chronological approach may be valid. However, Rumble does have a trending section, which must operate via some sort of algorithm. Moreover, as Ophir mentions, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook all started with chronological feeds. When you had 10 friends, you pretty much saw everything they did, he recalls. But when you follow 45,000 people, you cant see everything thats happening. He predicts that Rumble will be forced to adapt as it grows. Thats when matters may snowball even more or the whole thing falls apart.

If and when conservatives move from YouTube to Rumble or from Twitter and Facebook to other free-speech platforms like Parler and Gab this could create hyper echo chambers, according to Yini Zhang, a colleague of Ophir who studies social media and the spread of misinformation. Such chambers can radicalize people and make them more extreme in their attitudes and beliefs, and the idea of there being corners for liberals and conservatives to huddle in, she thinks, just deepens the divide.

The migration reminds her of the late Eighties and early Nineties after the FCC fairness doctrine was repealed. Thats when we saw the rise of cable news with Fox News on the right and MSNBC on the left, she says, highlighting the creation of an increasingly partisan media environment. People with strong political opinions and convictions know which cable news channel they should watch, and they know which channel will offer them the correct or truthful information. A social-media parallel is what she fears most, adding that its not impossible to imagine a liberal equivalent launching in the future. Liberals and conservatives, she worries, will then completely insulate themselves in a very homogeneous information environment that just caters to their existing views.

So, whats the solution? Ophir hopes for regulation. I dont think that private companies should be responsible for moderating content and censoring misinformation. Thats not their job. Theyre not able to do that. Theyre not motivated to do that. And this isnt limited to Rumble. Its true for Facebook and Twitter too. Private companies only have one goal in mind: They want to make money. So, we cant ask them to be guardians of information and integrity. It doesnt make sense. Every time those motivations are in conflict, those companies keep choosing profit over public safety.

Ophir explains that these platforms sneak through the cracks of FCC involvement by identifying as tech companies instead of media and news sources, which he finds laughable at this point. The legal system is still like 30 years behind, he says. Were still treating the Internet like its 1995. Its not. Social media is now the biggest thing in the world.

Read the original here:
Rumble Mixes Cat Videos With Covid Misinformation and the Right Is Loving It - Rolling Stone

New Year, New Opportunities to Strengthen Nebraska

January 4, 2022

Governors official photohere.

As we enter a new year, we face new opportunities to strengthen Nebraska. Our state will soon convene for the second session of the 107th Nebraska Legislature. I look forward to the robust debate that will fill the halls of the Capitol over the next few months as Nebraskas senators work to deliver results for the men and women who voted them into office. These senators come from districts with diverse perspectives, and the legislation they introduce will reflect those differences. However, there are key directives that most Nebraskans back.

Enable Nebraskans to keep more of their hard-earned money.

Our historically low unemployment rate of 1.8 percent is a testament to Nebraskans desire to work hard and earn. From teachers to truckers, mechanics to medical professionals, farmers to fast food workers, and every profession in between, our states women and men invest their time and effort to better their communities and support their families. Nebraskas tax code shouldnt get in their way.

Last session, we provided Nebraskans with a historic level of tax relief but there is more work to be done.

For example, we provided a tax exemption for 50% of Social Security income that will be phased in over five years. This year, we should increase that percentage and implement it sooner. We also began the process of aligning taxes on job creator income with those of taxes on individual income. I believe that needs to continue in order to fully unleash our economy.

Last legislative session, I supported LB 408 The Property Tax Request Act. This bill would have limited the annual growth of local government property taxes to 3% -- a reasonable limit that would have prevented property tax bills from increasing faster than Nebraskas families can afford. We nearly advanced the bill, falling just four votes short of moving it forward. Lets do better for Nebraska this year and get property taxes under control.

Spend, but spend responsibly.

As the state works to deliver even greater tax relief, it is critical that we also control government spending at all levels. Weve done it at the state level. Before I took office, state spending was growing at 6.5% a yearan unsustainable pace. During my time as Governor, the state has successfully limited the average annual rate of growth to 2.5%. For the sake of Nebraskas next generation, we should find ways to spend responsibly for years to come.

That includes this year, when we have the unique task of deciding how to spend funds Nebraska received as part of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) of 2021. Its imperative that these ARPA dollars go toward one-time projects. This is one-time money and must be spent as such. Otherwise, we risk growing government spending at an untenable rate. These funds can help our state better recover from COVIDs economic impact, strengthen public health and safety, and continue to invest in our skilled workforce. This is an excellent opportunity to fund infrastructure projects across our state that will benefit Nebraskans for generations to come.

Protect Nebraskans freedoms.

For liberty to flourish, Nebraskas elected officials must continue to protect public safety.

We have an obligation to update our aging state penitentiary. The existing building was constructed in 1869. Although its seen moderate updates over the years, the correctional facility is outdated. For the safety of our correctional officers and inmates alike, we must pursue a modern state penitentiary.

Preventing floods and ensuring access to water for future generations to come is also an important component of Nebraskas public safety. The Legislatures Statewide Tourism and Recreational Water Access and Resource Sustainability (STARWARS) Special Committee has been working to identify funding opportunities to enhance areas of Nebraska not only for tourism and economic development, but also for water sustainability and flood control. Investing proactively in our water security will mitigate the hardship, destruction, and loss of life that can accompany floods, as we know all too well.

Theres also opportunity to pass legislation that would strengthen protections of our God-given freedoms. Most fundamental is the right to life. Theres also the right to keep and bear arms, the right to religious freedom, and the right to free speech. Although these rights are already enshrined in the Constitution and in our State Constitution they are under attack in varying degrees. We should introduce and advance legislation that ensures Nebraskans retain all of their fundamental rights, both now and in the future.

We have a tremendous opportunity this session to enact meaningful change for our states communities, families, and children. I look forward to sharing more of my vision for Nebraska during my annual State of the State address on January 13.

As always, please email pete.ricketts@nebraska.gov or call 402-471-2244 with any questions you may have. Im confident that we can follow these directives by working together the Nebraska Way.

Go here to see the original:
New Year, New Opportunities to Strengthen Nebraska | Office of Governor Pete Ricketts - Governor Pete Ricketts

It was this time last year Silicon Valley rolled out a long-anticipated purge of political dissidents from the 21st-century digital public square, starting all the way at the top with President Donald Trump. In the aftermath of a two-hour riot at the Capitol, the outgoing president became the most canceled man in America. The dynamic later flipped, making him uncancellable as a consequence of social media giants dramatic overreach.

Within 48 hours last year, Trump was stripped from Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter. Shopify pulled the presidents online stores from its platform and YouTube escalated its enforcement against claims of voter fraud.

Then came a crackdown on Republican supporters. TikTok blocked the hashtag patriotparty. Reddit banned the massive r/DonaldTrump subreddit page, and tech giants Apple, Google, and Amazon colluded to make Parler, the free speech alternative to Twitter, a relic of the past. Its only a matter of time before they make same example out of Gettr, another social media platform gaining traction.

On Sunday, Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was permanently suspended from Twitter. Her crime? Sharing statistics from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) maintained by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). According to the New York Times, Greene published a chart from the CDC claiming the data showed extremely high amounts of COVID vaccine deaths.

The post earned Greene a fifth and final strike under Twitters policy against misinformation, which provokes permanent suspension. Greene was given her third strike in July when she claimed the novel Wuhan coronavirus was not dangerous for individuals under 65 and at a healthy weight. Greenes official Twitter account remains online with nearly 400,000 followers.

Shortly after Greene was kicked from Twitter, the Georgia congresswoman was slapped with a 24-hour suspension on Facebook for a similar alleged violation of the platforms community standards, i.e., permitted viewpoints. Greene revealed the suspension in a Telegram post Monday morning.

A post violated our policies and we have removed it; but removing her account for this violation is beyond the scope of our policies, a spokesperson for Meta, formerly Facebook, told the Wall Street Journal.

Greene, a sitting member of Congress, is not the only one to suffer immediate de-platforming to start off the new year. Dr. Robert Malone, a pioneer in mRNA technology, was also kicked off Twitter for unclear reasons just before his appearance on the Joe Rogan Podcast.

A viral clip from the podcast outlining the presence of mass formation psychosis gripping the western world over coronavirus hysteria then became the subject of censorship on Google-owned YouTube.

Just as last year introduced a radical escalation of censorship, this year promises to be no different. Trump was at least an outgoing elected official when he was removed from nearly all major online platforms last year, with less than 20 days left in office. Greene is only halfway through her first term with no plans to retire.

The censorship wont stop. The ideological forces behind it have benefitted too much. It helped land their preferred presidential candidate in the White House. It kept millions of Americans trapped in their homes for months on end to record profits for big business. Its enabled bad actors to manipulate the public discussion and brand outcasts out of those who fail to follow the predetermined narrative, to detrimental consequences.

Theres another election just 10 months away, and therefore a lot more to censor.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

See more here:
Big Tech Launches Another New Year Purge Of Political Dissidents - The Federalist

Weatherford College history and government students wont get a pass on classroom discussions of the Jan. 6 Capitol violence when they come for their spring semester 11 days into the new year.

We will definitely talk about Jan. 6, history and government instructor Nick Pugh said, adding that those dialogues in his class will start with students general thoughts of the event, when hundreds of then-President Donald Trumps most ardent supporters stormed the Capitol steps and into the building in an attempt to halt Congressional certification of Joe Bidens electoral college win over Trump.

And, two, what can we take from these events? Pugh continued. What are we supposed to learn from this?

Pughs colleague, history and government instructor Darrell Castillo, appeared eager to get his students talking.

As long as youre talking, theres going to be a resolution somewhere, Castillo said. For the history classes, of course, Ill relate it to other times there have been spontaneous demonstrations. And for the government class, Ill relate it to constitutional free speech or not.

The or not, he said, depends on if you think that was a constitutional exercise of free speech. I personally think it was. I do not classify any of those events as insurrection. I classify those events as the exercise of free speech, whether it comes from the left or it comes from the right.

The disruption left four dead on Jan. 6, and a Capitol Police officer died the following day of injuries sustained in the violence. More than 700 participants have been arrested in connection with the event, many of whom now have pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and/or felonies with which they were charged.

I couldnt believe what I was seeing on TV, Pugh said. We have to address these topics respectfully and with the knowledge they inflame passions on both sides. We are being invited to dig deeper, and (delve) what leads to the circumstances that this could happen in the U.S.A.

Castillo didnt say a word when asked if he thinks the country is headed for civil war. He just nodded.

If history is any indication, yes, he replied after a moment.

Sitting in his office at Weatherford College, Castillo indicated the events of Jan. 6, 2021, could be the preface for more far-right violence in America.

Thats why I find Jan. 6 interesting from a historical and political science perspective, he said. Because, that type of overt public extreme action, if you even want to call it extreme violence, is coming from the right. I will add its a precursor of more extreme violence coming from the right.

Castillo can speak of the right political flank both because politics is his bag and because he is a right-leaning conservative with the bonafides to prove it he has worked in Congress and served in the Reagan White House.

As for his students, he said a year ago they largely seemed OK with the scenes the nation watched on TV.

There was a lot of agreement and some disagreement, Castillo said of student reactions then. But the disagreement was in the minority, and I mean that in the sense of numeric minority.

He added hes detected no shifts in that student mindset as the anniversary has approached.

My students are usually politically conservative and socially conservative, said Castillo, who is faculty sponsor for the Weatherford College Republicans.

Pugh acknowledged the conservative community in which he teaches, adding that his students more often than not take their political cues from their parents.

I think their biggest question was, is this going to become normal? he recalled. I think that was the biggest fear.

The separate discussions that will take place in the instructors classrooms could get lively.

Castillo said some members of the crowd who ascended the Capitol steps that day, at worst, committed disorderly conduct. He said those who committed assaults, and several have pleaded guilty to that and other felonies, were engaging in unconventional political participation.

I dont think any examples one can put forth rise to the level of criminal activity, he said. Civil disobedience and disorderly conduct have been known to be effective. It certainly was proven to be effective in the Civil Rights movement.

And members of Congress, who were spirited from their chambers to undisclosed locations during the melee, were never remotely in any real danger, he said.

One has to remember that the Capitol is a public venue, he said, adding it is far less secure than the White House. In this free and open democracy we should be able to walk in the Capitol building or the White House.

Castillo said Antifa, the loosely knit coalition of anti-fascist protesters, and participants in the youth-fueled, 2011 Occupy Wall Street demonstration, have had their own violent episodes while exercising their free speech rights.

You see those same instances of police being assaulted by individuals involved in such extra-political actions, he said.

According to Fox News, one officer was pushed off a scooter during the Occupy Wall Street demonstration and 28 occupiers were arrested on disorderly conduct charges.

Pugh, who said he and Castillo enjoy a friendship despite sometimes politically opposed stances, said he did see criminal activity occurring at the Capitol a year ago Thursday.

Its pretty clear the federal courts dont agree with [Castillo], he said.

He also said he believes members of Congress did feel fear as the protestors filled the Capitol halls and breached the House of Representatives.

It doesnt take a whole lot of wind around here to get a backyard fire into a wildfire, he said. And, with passions being what they are, yeah, I think they had a genuine reason to be afraid.

He also criticized the critical thinking of people who now support those who participated in the event.

Ive heard Jan. 6 talked about with echoes of the Declaration of Independence, he said, drawing a distinction between the very specific complaints of the colonists and the false claims of a stolen election. What I have not heard is a cogent list of grievances. If theres a list of cogent grievances, I want to hear them. I anticipate, in the discussions this spring, the students will be respectful. Theyll be insightful, curious, intelligent often characteristics they are accused of not having.

Castillo likewise will encourage frank student discussion and discourage trivializing the day.

My approach is, I feel that students should feel free to question the answers, not just ask the questions but to question the answers, he said. Im not going to change anybodys thinking they are 18 or 19. They already know what they are thinking.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read more here:
DIVERGING VIEWS: College profs talk instruction of Jan. 6 - Weatherford Democrat

A community activist was arrested at a Florida press conferenceheld by Gov. Ron DeSantis on Tuesday after he protested the state's protest and coronavirus policies.

The confrontation began when DeSantis' aides began asking attendees for their press credentials at the Florida Department of Health prior to the governor's entrance. One attendee, Ben Frazier, the 71-year old president of Jacksonville's Northside Coalition, was asked to leave the room because he wasn't a journalist.

But Fraizer, who was there to challenge the state's lack of COVID-19 precautions, stood his ground, along with a group of likemindedcitizens. "This is a public building, and we don't intend on moving," he said. "We're here to hold the governor accountable."

RELATED: Floridians ask, "Where is Ron DeSantis?" as state shatters COVID records

"That's not the proper way to do that," an aide responded.

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

"What's the proper way, sir, not to follow our First Amendment rights?" Frazier asked. "Public expression, sir, it's critical to our democracy. This governor has stood against our rights to protest and to assemble peaceably. It is wrong."

Frazier's remarks refer to Florida's "anti-riot" bill signed back in April of last year, which stiffened the penalties associated with participating in "riots." Critics have broadly demurred the measure as an attempt to silence free speech and peaceful protest.

RELATED: Cops and their allies have pushed hard for new wave of stringent anti-protest bills

During the presser, Frazier pointed to a lawsuit by several states currently aimed at challenging the bill's constitutionality.

"This governor is an enemy of the people," he said. "We have a right to be here and we are not moving."

Eventually, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office deputies put handcuffs on the community organizer and escorted him out of the building. Frazier, a Black man, asked the officers why he was the only one being arrested.

According to the Tampa Bay Times, Frazier faces onetrespassing charge, which is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail.

Ron Desantis, who surrounds reporters with sycophants who cheer his answers and jeer the press (on rare occasions when they are allowed to ask questions), just had a citizen arrested for peacefully attempting to observe the presser in a public building. pic.twitter.com/62siI33PCh

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) January 4, 2022

Asked about the incident, a DeSantis spokespersontold The Tampa Bay Times that Frazier had "the right to protest in public places but not to trespass in a secured facility in order to disrupt a press briefing and prevent information from being conveyed to the public."

The development comes amid a massive upsurge in COVID-19 cases throughout the Sunshine State. This week, DeSantis, who has vociferously opposed mask and vaccine mandates, said that DemocraticCOVID policies have been driven by a sense of "hysteria," disputing the science of common-sense health precautions.

Read the original:
Ron DeSantis hounded during press conference: "This governor is an enemy of the people" - Salon

Last month, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in a case that could set off a new era of abortion bans across much of the country. It also marked the start of President Bidens Democracy Summit, a high-level conference bringing together world leaders, civil society and the private sector to discuss challenges and opportunities facing democracy internationally. One of the stated themes of this first of two planned summits is a focus on human rights.

The proximity of these two moments is more than mere coincidence. Yes, the U.S. faces an unprecedented crisis for the right to abortion. But we must also recognize the numerous links between democracy and reproductive rights. A most basic and fundamental freedom in a democracy is the ability to control decision-making around ones own reproduction. When this freedom is removed, it threatens the ability of half of the countrys population to participate equally in society. So, if the U.S. hopes to credibly host a marquee event to promote its return to global democratic leadership, it must contend with cracks in that facade here at home.

If the U.S. hopes to credibly host a marquee event to promote its return to global democratic leadership, it must contend with cracks in that facade here at home.

The recent Supreme Court cases out of Texas and Mississippi are a key example. They involve some of most extreme abortion bans in U.S. historybanning abortion at six and 15 weeks respectively (the former a cut-off before many even realize they are pregnant).

As we wrote in a brief in the Mississippi case with Amnesty International USA and Human Rights Watch, abortion bans are inconsistent with international human rights protections and a worldwide trend toward expanding access for abortion care. They also place the U.S. in direct violation of its human rights obligations. The U.S. has ratified several human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and must comply with their terms. Access to abortion is protected under a myriad of rights under these treaties, including the right to life, the right to non-discrimination, the right to privacy and the right to be free from torture.

Abortion bans are inconsistent with international human rights protections. They also place the U.S. in direct violation of its human rights obligations.

U.S. disregard for these internationally-recognized human rights far predates Texas and Mississippis abortion bans. For decades, its global restrictions on abortion have not only deprived countless pregnant people of their right to necessary healthcarethey have disrupted core democratic freedoms such as free speech. Policies like the Helms and Siljander Amendments, as well as the global gag rule, impact the ability of individuals to participate in political life by shutting down free speech and democratic conversation about abortion around the world.

The foundation of the U.S. approach to human rights is American exceptionalismthe idea that our Constitution affords us the most protections. But where has that left the status of fundamental rights such as reproductive freedom here in the U.S.?

Fortunately, President Biden has the power to improve the United States credibility on human rights. Early in 2021, the Global Justice Center and over 140 other organizations signed a letter to the president calling for executive and administrative action to implement U.S. human rights obligations on sexual and reproductive health and rights. As an example, President Biden could take executive action and issue guidance from relevant agencies clarifying that under the Helms Amendment U.S. foreign assistance funds can be used to support abortion care provided in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment of the pregnant person.

Constructive U.S. engagement on human rights has the potential for broad impactnot only to shore up protections for Americans domestically, but also to bolster the perception of human rights globally. As Dr. Tlaleng Mofokeng, U.N. special rapporteur on the right to physical and mental health, recently said, We have this joke among us that when the U.S. sneezes the rest of the world catches a [cold]. We know that politically that what happens in the United States does have an impact in precedents elsewhere in the world.

In her remarks at the Democracy Summit, Vice President Kamala Harris said, We are working to defend equal rights, including reproductive rights, which are at grave risk here in the United States. While such acknowledgement is a welcome step, there is far more the U.S. could do to live up to its promises.

Before its next Democracy Summit, the Biden administration should make a real commitment to ending all anti-abortion policies that cause the U.S. to fall short of its democratic aspirations.

If you found this articlehelpful,please consider supporting our independent reporting and truth-telling for as little as $5 per month.

Up next:

Continued here:
The US Can't Be a Global Leader on Democracy While Banning Abortion at Home - Ms. Magazine

In the weeks following its capture of Afghanistan, sympathy for the Taliban emerged from an unlikely corner of the internet: the online far-Right. In awe of the Islamist terrorist organisations martial spirit and revolt against liberalism, a number of online dissidents took to framing the Taliban fighters as heroes on social media. From caricaturing them as Chads (alpha males) to sharing images of other Islamist groups with captions like Wahabi boy summer (a play on the nationalist white boy summer slogan), many of the memes notoriously associated with fringe digital subcultures were suddenly absorbed into discussion around terrorism including by Taliban members themselves.

This use of far-Right tropes in particular, the Chad vs Wojak dichotomy is telling of the two groups mutual mourning over modern degeneracy and the decline of the West. But this alliance also throws a spoke in the wheel the conventional narrative surrounding Islam and the Right.

After all, in both fringe and mainstream conservative discourses, Islam is loathed as a prime culprit driving societal decline. Whether it takes the form of European white nationalist groups such as Generation Identity blaming Muslim immigration for the great replacement or a Right-wing newspaper columnists deeming it a threat to our liberal values, hostility towards Islam seems to be a defining feature on the modern Right. No less ambiguous is Islamists own hostility towards the Right as the vanguard of the Western culture that they oppose; for both parties, a convergence with one another would seem paradoxical.

Islamism and the Left, on the other hand, appear to make far more intuitive allies. Most recently, it has been suggested that some Islamists may be actively co-opting wokeness andcamouflaging their agenda in the language of diversity and inclusion. But well outside the sphere of extremism, the so-called Islamo-Leftist alliance is a well-established source of analysis. A number of mainstream trends reveal the extent of a relationship between Islam and the Left, from the crossover of Muslim and Leftist causes among student activists to the fact that Western Muslims statistically tend to vote for Left-wing parties.

Yet this alliance is not without its own tensions: the modern Left has an uneasy relationship with traditional religion, and struggles to incorporate moral absolutism, spiritual hierarchies, and the submission to a Divine order that is integral to Islam. In other words, while the modern Left seeks to break down grand narratives, Islam is a grand narrative, and one imbued with a profound metaphysical potency at that.

This is not to overlook the fact that there have been numerous attempts to systematically converge Islamic and Leftist political philosophy. Most prominently in the 20th century, movements such as the Islamic socialism of the Iranian Revolution or the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party sought to achieve their political aims through means which were, or at least strived to be, theologically sincere. It is also notable that this kind of Leftism, which was closer to orthodox Marxism, was more sympathetic to grand narratives than its contemporary forms where postmodern currents prevail (leaving aside the overtly anti-religious sentiments of Marx himself, that is).

Today, attempts by Western Leftists to form alliances with Muslims often overlook religious narratives: unsurprisingly, Islamic theological and intellectual traditions do not take centre stage in secular activism. Though modern Leftists committed to showing solidarity with minority groups may represent the identities of Muslims, they struggle to represent the values of Muslims. Incorporating their traditional beliefs would involve revising their own secular (and ironically, modern Western) biases, which, despite efforts to decolonise the mind, they are often reluctant to do.

In effect, the modern Lefts concern with religion boils down to identity politics; an impetus, perhaps, for practising Muslims to gravitate to the other side of the ideological spectrum. But religion is also relegated to identity politics on the modern Right, where the term culturally Christian is commonplace. Self-styled anti-woke commentators may invoke Christianity in their paeans for a return to tradition, but this often gives precedence to the cultural and aesthetic residues of the religion over its metaphysical and moral precepts. As far as ideology is concerned, more faith is placed in the axioms of the European Enlightenment individual liberty, free speech and, ironically, secularism than those of traditional Christianity, now reduced to little more than a signifier of Western heritage.

It follows that the Rights contempt towards Islam does not come so much from a theological defence of Christianity, but a cultural one. Likewise, the Lefts representation of Muslims, owing to its own secular biases, also ends up reducing Islam to a cultural entity. In effect, theological and metaphysical considerations have been rendered obsolete on both the Left and the Right when it comes to religion.

This points, among other things, to a major shift within the Right: traditionally, it was the Right that served to uphold religious principles, including moral absolutism, spiritual hierarchies and, in a way, submission to a Divine order. But fixated as it now is on individual liberty, free speech and secularism, the modern Right overlooks this. And in relocating its origins to the European Enlightenment, it forgets that the conservative tradition was itself born out of a hesitation towards the Enlightenment.

Roger Scruton one of the last philosophers to defend conservatism as a counterweight to the Enlightenment, rather than a full embrace of it saw it necessary for politics to have a metaphysical dimension. Following Edmund Burke, Michael Oakeshott and Matthew Arnold, he remained true to the origins of British conservatism as a reaction against the excesses of liberalism and secularism. This conservatism was, he wrote, a defence of tradition against calls for popular religion and high culture against the materialist doctrine of progress.

With this in mind, the notion of an alliance between Islam and the Right begins to make sense. Islam poses many of the same challenges to Enlightenment liberalism as the English conservative tradition once did, with both traditions recognising the social and spiritual dangers of modern materialism. Islam, in a sense, fulfils Scrutons definition of metaphysical conservatism as a defence of sacred things against desecration. But today, the modern Right is more concerned with defending free speech against wokeness, individual liberties against collectivism, and freedom against censorship than sacred things against desecration.

What does this tell us about the alleged alliance between Islam and the far-Right? Since the mainstream Right has become indifferent towards traditional values, their ideological debris has drifted downstream to be claimed by fringe subcultures. But these fragments, severed from their original contexts, have been misappropriated to suit hateful ideologies that are just as unmoored from religious virtues. Defences of gender roles, the family and community, for example, are often articulated through crude biological reductionism rather than spiritual concerns. Whether its the blood and soil paganism of Neo-Nazis or the New Atheism of hardline rationalists, much of todays far-Right is just as materialistic and hostile towards traditional religion.

The fact that many look for or encounter traditional ideas in these extremist subcultures is telling of the fact that these ideas are severely underrepresented in political discourse. This was once a role fulfilled by the Right. Yet modern conservatisms embrace of liberalism and secularism, despite originating as a counterweight to these Enlightenment ideologies, excludes those wishing to defend the sacred. Without representation of such concerns, dissidents will continue to drift to extremes even if it means promoting a group as nefarious as the Taliban.

Originally posted here:
Why the online Right flirt with the Taliban - UnHerd

The Flagler County School Board will vote on a proclamation that board member Cheryl Massaro drafted to denounce hate group protests at board meetings.

But the edited resolution will be missing two words: hate groups.

Massaro presented her resolution at an agenda workshop on Jan. 4. Board member Colleen Conklin, who had supported such a resolution, did not attend the workshop.

Massaro suggested a proclamation at a Dec. 7 workshop in response to the November board meeting when adult protesters seeking to ban the book, All Boys Arent Blue, clashed with high school student protesters outside of the Government Services Building.

Im very concerned about actions that took place outside our building, caused by members of certain hate groups especially when its targeting our students, Massaro said at the Dec. 7 workshop.

She read a draft to the board at the Jan. 4 meeting, denouncing intimidating actions, slurs, name calling or threats of violence toward Flagler County School district students and staff.

I dont want to be subjective. I would denounce poor behavior against our students.

JILL WOOLBRIGHT

Her four-sentence draft specifically denounced hate groups. Board member Jill Woolbright asked her to modify the text to denounce the behavior without using the term,hate group.

Woolbright said she had a conversation with a representative from the Sheriffs Office, who told her that no members of any known hate groups were identified at the November protests. She also referred to a list by the Southern Poverty Law Center identifying statewide hate groups in Florida and hate groups located in nearby counties, but none based in Flagler County.

I witnessed poor behavior from all groups in our community, Woolbright said. Slurs, name calling, name calling from the podium addressing the dais.

Massaro said video showed protesters wearing clothing that displayed names of two extremist groups, Three Percenters and Proud Boys.

Woolbright said the term,hate group, is subjective.

I dont want to be subjective, Woolbright said. I would denounce poor behavior against our students.

School Board member Janet McDonald appeared to be against the resolution, saying the Sheriffs Office and not the School Board should determine whether behavior goes over the line.

I think there is antagonistic behavior on lots of parts, McDonald said. Its their free speech. We dont have to like it or approve of it, but they have the right to their opinions.

Massaro removed "hate groups" from her draft. The resolution is expected to be on the Jan. 18 board meeting agenda.

Originally posted here:
Proposed School Board resolution would denounce behavior, not hate groups - Palm Coast Observer

The Sparks Police officer suing the City of Sparks for being disciplined after posting caustic tweets about leftists, protesters and Black Lives Matter in 2020 got a court victory in late December.

Officer George Forbush sued Sparks after his tweets were determined by the city to have violated city policies. Forbush sued after being put on unpaid leave for four days and told he had to attend diversity training.

His tweets prompted community outrage in the wake of George Floyds murder at the hands of Minneapolis police and the May 30, 2020, downtown Reno riot.

Forbush suggested protesters and those suspected of crimes should be executed, assaulted and punished by police.

His comments were documented in the lawsuit.

In response to a video depicting individuals at a Black Lives Matter march breaking the window of a car and beating the driver, Plaintiff commented: I have six AR-15 rifles. I always thought having an AR-15 or AK-47 pistol was pointless because of lack of shouldering but now Im going to build a couple AR pistols just for BLM, Antifa or active shooters who cross my path and cant maintain social distancing.'

That was one of many tweets showing support for violence by police against citizens. Forbush was disciplined for violating city policy, including all private, personal, off-duty social media activity and speech.

He remains a police officer but is challenging city policies by saying he posted his opinions on his own time. The city tried to get the case dismissed in favor of arbitration, citing Sparks collective bargaining agreement with its officers.

Federal Judge Miranda Du disagreed in what is shaping up to be a free speech case.

Because Plaintiff asserts claims arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, the Court finds that it does have federal question jurisdiction, Du wrote. Defendants argument that a binding arbitration agreement alters the Courts authority to hear federal statutory claims is unpersuasive.

Bob Conrad is publisher, editor and co-founder of This Is Reno. He has served in communications positions for various state agencies and earned a doctorate from the University of Nevada, Reno in 2011, where he completed a dissertation on social media, journalism and crisis communications. In addition to managing This Is Reno, he holds a part-time appointment for the Mineral County University of Nevada Extension office.

More here:
Judge: Forbush lawsuit against the city of Sparks can proceed - ThisisReno

Logan Paul hasnt posted a new YouTube video in over six months. His last two uploads were titled Im Fighting Floyd Mayweather This Week and My Last Words To Floyd Mayweather. Then, silence. If you didnt know better, youd think he died in the ring.

What else but a fatal boxing incident, after all, could have led one of the most famous YouTubers in the world a controversial but charismatic web presence who helped shape the template for modern e-celebrity to leave his 23.2 million subscribers on radio silence for half a year and counting?

Demonetization; being blacklisted; being shadow-banned, says Paul, 26, rattling off the different ways YouTube and other mainstream social networks have alienated him. Its really demotivating when you are yourself, and the platform that youre on because of the advertisers, because of public sentiment, whatever it is no longer wants to support you.

In search of a corner of the internet where he can be his full, unfiltered self, Paul has traded in YouTube for Subify, the company that runs the back-end tech for his boutique fan network the Maverick Club. Part of Subifys pitch is that there are almost no restrictions on what Paul can post in the Maverick Club, or what other celebrities can post through their own Subify-enabled channels.

It really feels like free speech is dead in America right now, because a platform can literally shut you down and take away your microphone, co-founder Zak Folkman said. At Subify, we will literally never do that to a creator unless they are promoting terrorist acts or child pornography.

In an era when social media censorship is a top-of-mind concern for everyone including content creators and members of Congress, its a vision with appeal to some. But its also one that raises a lot of messy, ethically fraught questions as a recent discussion between Paul, Folkman and Subify co-founder Chase Hero showed.

If we had a Nazi on the platform that just wanted to talk about their beliefs, Folkman said at one point during the Zoom call, I personally would have a very hard time telling them Youre not allowed to do that, unless theyre inciting violence.

This, apparently, was news to Paul.

Look, I love your sentiment, he said. But as another creator on the platform, youd be hearing from me.

The real answer is, I think that we just take everything as it comes, Hero said. All these people are gonna have different beliefs ... and giving them a platform to communicate with their people is really all we care about. Right? And obviously, Im kind of with Paul; Id be really hard-pressed about someone whos a Nazi.

Obviously we dont support ..., Folkman said before Paul cut him off, saying it was a terrible example.

Folkman continued: Well take it on a case-by-case basis. But I really cant see too many creators that we wouldnt feel comfortable with supporting their right to freedom of speech.

Paul didnt seem convinced.

Bad example, Folkman said. Bad example.

After the call, the company told The Times that Folkman had misspoken. We absolutely do not allow hate speech of any kind for example no Nazis or anything of that nature, an email statement attributed to Folkman read. We take pride in giving a platform to creators of all kinds.. We believe that everyone is entitled to have their voice and opinions heard.

If Subifys leaders are conflicted about what running a haven for free speech actually entails, theyre not alone. The internet has long been seen as a refuge for untrammeled expression, but as large social media platforms have come to dominate the web, that ideal has run up against concerns about extremism, misinformation and user safety. What moderation steps tech platforms do take have become controversial and highly politicized.

Subify isnt the first tech company to build a brand around the promise of near-absolute free speech, but it does differ from many such apps in its focus on influencers creative freedom rather than Trump-era culture wars.

The simple fact is that no company in its right mind would ever throw its hands up and cede control of its product solely to the users of that product, said Sarah T. Roberts, an associate professor at UCLA and co-founder of its Center for Critical Internet Inquiry.

Because social media companies in America enjoy wide legal immunity to moderate what their users post, Roberts added, this therefore becomes a question of tolerance from a business perspective. Thats why I consider content moderation to be primarily a tool of brand management for firms; the firms themselves have to assess what risk theyre willing to take by having distasteful, abhorrent material on their site.

For Paul, these arent abstract questions. Back when he was primarily known as a YouTuber, that platform demonetized him or took away his ability to make money from his videos after he posted a series of controversial clips in which he tasered dead rats, endorsed the Tide Pod challenge and, most notoriously, filmed a suicide victim in Japans Aokigahara forest.

Other scandals have found Paul saying he would go gay for a month; using women as a human bicycle; and, in one video, appearing to lasso unsuspecting women.

These days, Paul hasnt entirely abandoned YouTube his podcast Impaulsive has its own channel, with 3.53 million followers, that still updates regularly but he has moved much of his creative output, including his signature autobiographical vlogs, over to Subify.

Youre creating it for an ecosystem of people who really like you, Paul said of the Maverick Club. Its not for the masses to judge or make assessments or make mean comments. As someone who in the past has been polarizing, theres people who dont like me; theres people who do like me. I really love the idea of leaning into people who do like me.

An Oops! All Logan Pauls social network might sound hellish to those who find Pauls patent mix of stunts and self-documentation obnoxious. But super-fans are willing to pay $19.95 a month for access, and Paul is happy to oblige them.

Behind the safety of a paywall, on a platform all his own, Paul said hes able to post a bit more explicit content, a bit more risque content.

Its that 10% of me, he said, that whether for legal reasons, whether for public sentiment, whatever, Im unwilling to show the world.

Subify declined to say how it wouldve handled the suicide forest and rat-tasering videos, instead pointing to adult-related content, conservative and other alternative viewpoints and hunting and firearms content as areas where its more permissive than YouTube.

As Paul was growing disenchanted with mainstream social media, Subify offered him an out. Folkman and Hero, who have a background in e-commerce, had initially built a proto-Subify for personal use: It was so that we could power our own brands, Hero said.

But while hanging out with Paul one day Hero and Pauls manager are longtime friends the YouTuber suggested they open it up more widely.

Hes like, Man, I think this would be really good for a person. What do ya think? Hero recalled. I was like, If youre willing to be that person, wed give it a shot.

The result was the Maverick Club, Subifys first entry into celebrity fan platforms; its now been up and running for about a year and a half, Paul said. (Paul is one of Subifys top creators, but according to a spokesperson, he has no other financial stake in the company.)

In the meantime, Subify expanded its suite of features and began finding new celebrities to work with: rapper Flo Rida, Jackass stuntman Steve-O, NASCAR driver Hailie Deegan. Hero said that tens and tens of thousands of creators have applied to join, and that he and Folkman are constantly vetting, asking questions and then doing our due diligence to filter out poor fits.

Despite Subifys promise of near-absolute free speech, not everyone makes the cut.

Theres a guy who wanted to come in and revive the old bum fights, if you remember that make homeless people fight, Hero said. Were like, Yeah, thats just not gonna work here. I love you to death, but thats just not something that we really condone.

The companys laissez-faire attitude also doesnt extend to its nonfamous subscriber base. Celebrities may get wide latitude to post things they couldnt put up elsewhere, but in the interest of building an environment that the co-founders describe as a safe space and an echo chamber for content creators, their fans are subject to more rigorous scrutiny.

We have moderators, so if we see anybody whos being actively negative or anything like that, its actually a violation of the terms and conditions, Folkman said. Well usually send a warning if its pretty mild, and then from there, if they violate it again, theyll be banned and blacklisted.

Entry into that walled garden isnt free. In exchange for building each client a stand-alone platform with support for multimedia posts, livestreaming, tipping, direct messaging, mobile apps and push notifications, the company which a spokesperson said has been valued by third parties at approximately $100 million takes a cut of everyones earnings. The specific percentage depends on the individual platform size and functionality, the spokesperson said.

As the internet becomes more and more paywalled, its an increasingly popular business model. Startups such as Patreon, Substack, Cameo and Bandcamp now help influencers, artists and other online entrepreneurs mint a buck off of content they might otherwise put out for free. The company Fanfix offers monetization tools similar to Subifys but according to co-founder Simon Pompan adheres to more traditional moderation policies, including not allowing nudity.

OnlyFans is another such competitor. Although its best known for selling amateur and independent pornography, the platform has feinted at ambitions of becoming a more generic content-monetization platform; this summer it briefly moved to ban sexual content, only to reverse course days later.

While Subify allows pornography, too, its co-founders hope to avoid being pigeonholed as an overtly sexual platform.

Ive been recruited to OnlyFans, Paul said. The business model is great. But the platform has this stigma ... I have no interest in being a part of.

Subify has proved to be a suitable alternative. By combining OnlyFans monetization features, YouTubes more flexible branding and a free-speech ethos all its own, the company has helped Paul build his own little internet oasis, free from the censors, haters and trolls who soured him on the open web.

Subify has kidnapped me from YouTube! he exclaimed at one point during the Zoom call.

Its been a great abduction, Hero responded.

Brian Contreras,

Los Angeles Times (TNS)

See the rest here:
Logan Paul is on an elusive quest to build a free-speech platform thats not a cesspool - The Dallas Morning News