Federal Government Authorizes Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to Censor “Anti-Islam” Speech; Lawsuit Filed

3320334677Center for Security Policy, July 13, 2016:

Today, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) under the First Amendment.

Section 230 provides immunity from lawsuits to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, thereby permitting these social media giants to engage in government-sanctioned censorship and discriminatory business practices free from legal challenge.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, and Jihad Watch.

As alleged in the lawsuit, Geller and Spencer, along with the organizations they run, are often subject to censorship and discrimination by Facebook, Twitter and YouTube because of Geller’s and Spencer’s beliefs and views, which Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube consider expression that is offensive to Muslims.

Such discrimination, which is largely religion-based in that these California businesses are favoring adherents of Islam over those who are not, is prohibited in many states, but particularly in California by the state’s anti-discrimination law, which is broadly construed to prohibit all forms of discrimination.  However, because of the immunity granted by the federal government, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are free to engage in their otherwise unlawful, discriminatory practices.

As set forth in the lawsuit, Section 230 of the CDA immunizes businesses such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube from civil liability for any action taken to “restrict access to or availability of material that” that they “consider to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

Robert Muise, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, issued the following statement:

“Section 230 of the CDA confers broad powers of censorship upon Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube officials, who can silence constitutionally protected speech and engage in discriminatory business practices with impunity by virtue of this power conferred by the federal government in violation of the First Amendment.”

Muise went on to explain:

“Section 230 is a federal statute that alters the legal relations between our clients and Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, resulting in the withdrawal from our clients of legal protections against private acts.  Consequently, per U.S. Supreme Court precedent, state action lies in our clients’ challenge under the First Amendment.”

David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, added:

“Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have notoriously censored speech that they deem critical of Islam, thereby effectively enforcing blasphemy laws here in the United States with the assistance of the federal government.”

Yerushalmi concluded:

“It has been the top agenda item of Islamic supremacists to impose such standards on the West.  Its leading proponents are the Muslim Brotherhood’s network of Islamist activist groups in the West and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which co-sponsored, with support from Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton, a U.N. resolution which called on all nations to ban speech that could promote mere hostility to Islam.  Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are falling in line, and we seek to stop this assault on our First Amendment freedoms.”

AFLC Co-Founders and Senior Counsel Robert J. Muise and David Yerushalmi, along with the plaintiffs in this case, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, will hold a Press Call from 2:00-2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 13.  To access this press conference call, dial (641) 715-3655 and enter code 111815.

Also see:

AOSHQ: YouTube’s Video Ban Proves Rich Higgins Right

Capture-5

Former DOD Official Rich Higgins warned of the Islamist influence shaping America’s policies against “violent extremism.” He was right.

CounterJihad, July 6, 2016:

Just yesterday, the right-of-center blog Ace of Spades described an interview given by former DOD official and Special Forces trainer Rich Higgins.  Higgins said that the Obama administration had adopted a set of counter-terrorism policies that ended up being drafted by many Islamists, including members of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Ostensibly about countering extremism, these policies were really about silencing critics of Islam and Islamism.  That motive, which is a core part of the Brotherhood’s agenda, is also shared by other radical Islamist groups including al Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS).

Political warfare includes both non-violent and violent actions working in synthesis, Higgins says. The left, with enemy-friendly Muslim Brotherhood allies, is able to control the dominant cultural narrative with the media and the government, blinding us in the war on terror and impacting how Americans think, he argues.

Higgins calls for a “strategic and operational pause” in America’s misguided battle to stop the terror. He would, instead, ask new leadership to develop a comprehensive political warfare plan, while removing the subversive policies and personnel causing America to lose this paramount battle.

He cites the “purges” carried out by law enforcement and intelligence officials throughout government, which Phil Haney, Sebastian Gorka and Steve Coughlin have made public.

Today, Ace notes, the YouTube controversy proves that he was right.  While YouTube is not a government agency, YouTube’s parent company is involved in a public-private partnership with the US government aimed at “countering violent extremism” — the very program Higgins is describing.  Jigsaw, formerly “Google Ideas,” is being run by a former US State Department employee who has been tasked with figuring out how Alphabet (formerly Google) can “use technology to tackle the toughest geopolitical challenges, from countering violent extremism to thwarting online censorship to mitigating the threats associated with digital attacks.”

Higgins is indeed correct about the root of the issue.  The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was identified by the FBI as an American front for the Muslim Brotherhood.  Its current president is Mohamed Magid, who has been celebrated in the press for helping the Federal government develop its “countering violent extremism” plan.

Likewise, the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been an active participant.  By its own admission, its intent is to weaken the degree to which American officials have elected to frame their “relationship with American Muslims through a securitized lens.”  Expressing a concern that this stigmatizes the community, they would like to push security professionals out of the center role.  Efforts like this Google outreach are just what they have been hoping to see.

The effect, though, is to turn the program’s intent on its head.  This was intended to address the dangers of increased terrorism.  Instead, it has made it more difficult for critics of the ideology that produces such terror to speak and be heard.  That happens to be a goal of radical Islamist groups, ironically.

As Ace put it, “somehow our policy has been turned inside-out from being anti-terrorist to anti-upsetting-potential-terrorists — which is the precise goal potential terrorists seek… The goal is to make people afraid to speak negatively about their religion and their Caliphate — to implement sharia’s prohibition against ‘slander’ against Islam.”

CAIR and ISNA will likely say that they have some other goal than advancing the rule of sharia’s prohibitions in America.  However, that has been the effect of their actions.  That effect does line up with the express goals of outlined in the infamous Explanatory Memorandum, which was introduced as evidence by the Department of Justice in the nation’s largest-ever terrorism financing trial.

Perhaps that’s just a coincidence.

YouTube bans video on Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia and Civilization Jihad as “hate speech”

vlcsnap-2016-06-29-12h59m01s200

Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, July 6, 2016:

Here is a full transcript of the video. Where is the “hate speech”? Where is there even any factual inaccuracy?

For the Left, truth is no defense. What they want to do is silence their ideological foes. That’s all. The problem with the increasingly mainstream concept that “hate speech is not free speech” is that what exactly constitutes “hate speech” is a subjective judgment, often based on the political proclivities of the person doing the judging. If a Leftist analyst who subscribes to the fantasy that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “firewall against extremism” is doing the judging, he may think that the information below is “hate speech,” while if someone who is aware of the true nature and magnitude of the jihad threat is the judge, he would more likely consider Hamas-linked CAIR’s “Islamophobia” reports to be genuine “hate speech.”

The concept of “hate speech” is, in reality, a tool of the powerful to silence and demonize their critics. It has no place in a free society. This action by YouTube is ominous in the extreme, and is almost certainly the harbinger of much worse to come.

You can still see the video on Facebook here, and here is the full transcript: “Killing for a Cause: Sharia Law & Civilization Jihad,” Counter Jihad, June 29, 2016:

What is Civilization Jihad? This video explains in three minutes.

We have a new video aimed at non-experts as an introduction to the basic ideas behind the Counterjihad. Please watch it, and share it with those whom you think need to see it. The text of the video is as follows:

Terrorism seems to be everywhere, and it’s getting worse. The bad guys have lots of names—ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Haram—but they have one thing in common. They are all killing for a cause: Islamic Law known as Sharia.

Sharia is a return to medieval Islam. Sharia demands a Holy War calledJihad. The most widely available book of Islamic Law in English says: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.”

There are two kinds of Jihad. Violent Jihad is horribly simple, slaughtering innocents and forcing submission. Violent Jihadists want to conquer land for their Caliphate – essentially an Islamic State where Sharia Law is supreme.

But there is another kind of Jihad. In their Explanatory Memorandum, theMuslim Brotherhood, calls this, “civilization jihad,” saying, “The [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

Civilization Jihad has the same goal as the Violent Jihad—to conquer land for their Caliphate—but instead of waging war or staging terror attacks like their brothers in the violent jihad, these Civilization Jihadists wear suits and ties, and their work is much more subtle.

So what do they do? They file lawsuits for Muslim truck drivers who don’t want to drive beer. They convince schools to hold Muslim Day, where the girls wear head scarves and the kids say Muslim prayers. They complain when our government watches to see if their violent buddies are hanging out with them.

They call anyone critical of Islamic Law an “Islamophobe,” a term they invented to make people scared to speak out—like the neighbors of the terrorists in San Bernardino who knew something was wrong, but didn’t want to say anything because they’d be accused of profiling.

These bad guys have lots of names, too: the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); the Muslim Student Association (MSA); Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). The Justice Department found that these groups were, in fact, started by the Muslim Brotherhood.

These groups like to say that terrorism has no religion, but only Islam has Sharia and Jihad.

Not all Muslims practice Sharia or support it, but an awful lot do. They believe that anyone who insults Islam can be killed; they believe thatwomen are property; that gays should be killed; and that little girls should be mutilated and forced to marry old men they’ve never men. These things are simply not allowed in our free society and are against the Constitution.

There are plenty of Modern Muslims who want to “live and let live,” but unfortunately the groups that speak most often for the Muslim community follow the medieval version based on Sharia.

They are working to make the US more like the Caliphate. They have to go.

The American Gulag

550px-censored_rubber_stampFront Page Magazine, by Phyllis Chesler, June 27, 2016:

For years, beginning in 2003, I have personally faced both censorship and demonization. When I began publishing pieces about anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, and Islamic gender and religious apartheid at conservative sites, I was seen as having “gone over to the dark side,” as having joined the legion of enemies against all that was right and good.

My former easy and frequent access to left-liberal venues was over. I learned, early on, about the soft censorship of the Left, the American version of the Soviet Gulag. One could think, write, and even publish but it would be as if one had not spoken–although one would still be constantly attacked for where one published as much as for what one published.

Since then, Left censorship has only gotten worse. (There is also censorship on the Right–but not quite as much.)

A week ago, a colleague of mine was thrilled that a mainstream newspaper had reached out to him for a piece about the violent customs of many male Muslim immigrants to Europe. He discovered, to his shock, that his piece had been edited in a way that turned his argument upside down and ended up sounding like American Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s view, namely, that home-grown terrorists need “love and compassion,” not profiling or detention.

I told him: One more left-liberal newspaper has just bitten the Orwellian dust. He could expose this use of his reasoned view for propaganda purposes–or wear out his welcome at this distinguished venue.

“But,” I said, “on the other hand, what kind of welcome is it if they change your words and the main thrust of your argument?”

That same week, right after the Jihad massacre in Orlando, another colleague, long used to being published–and published frequently at gay websites–wrote about the male Muslim immigrant/refugee physical and sexual violence against girls and women (their own and infidel women); against homosexuals–and paradoxically, also against young boys. He counseled gays to understand that the issues of gun control and “hate,” while important, were also quite beside the point, that “homosexuality is a capital crime in Islam.”

His piece was rejected by every gay site he approached. One venue threatened him:  If he published his piece “anywhere,” that his work would no longer be welcome in their pages.

I welcomed him to the American Gulag.

He told me that he finally “had” to publish the piece at a conservative site.

Gently, I told him that what he wrote was the kind of piece that was long familiar only at conservative sites and that he should expect considerable flack for where he’s published as well as for what he’s published.

Another gay right activist told me that when he described Orlando as a Jihad attack, he was castigated as a “right-wing hater.” He, too, had to publish what he wanted to say at a conservative site.

I published two pieces about Orlando. I said similar kinds of things and I privately emailed both articles to about 30 gay activists whom I know.

The silence thereafter was, as they say, deafening. I was not attacked but I was given the Silent Treatment.

For a moment, I felt like gay activist Larry Kramer might have felt when, in the 1980s, he tried to persuade gay men to stop going to the baths and engaging in promiscuous sex, that their lust was literally killing them. Kramer was attacked as a spoilsport and as the homophobic enemy of the gay lifestyle. Alas, Kramer had been right and many gay male lives were lost to AIDS.

Thus, gay activists see their collective interests as best served by marching, lock-step, with politically correct politicians who view “mental illness,” “gun control,” and “American right-wing hatred of gays”–not Jihad–as the major problems. Such gay activists also prefer “Palestine” to Israel. It makes absolutely no difference that Israel does not murder its homosexual citizens and that in fact, Israel grants asylum to Muslim Arab men in flight from being torture-murdered by other Muslim Arab men.

A number of European activists have recently visited me.  They described what has been happening to women who undertake the journey from Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Turkey;  along the way, the girls and women are continually groped and sexually assaulted, even penetrated in every possible orifice, by gangs of male Muslim immigrants. If they want to live, their husbands and fathers can do nothing.

So much for Muslim immigrant women on the move.

And now, European women are being told to “dye their hair black,” stay home “after 8pm,” “always have a male escort at night;” a group of German nudists, whose tradition goes back 100 years, have just been told to “cover up” because refugees are being moved into the rural lake community.

Where will this all end? In Europe becoming a Muslim Caliphate dominated by Sharia law and by all its myriad misogynist interpretations? In Muslim immigrants assimilating to Western ways? In Europeans voluntarily converting to Arab and Muslim ways? In non-violent but parallel Muslim lives?

Bravo to England which has just taken its first, high risk steps to control its borders and its immigrant population.

New questions for AG Lynch about Orlando attack 911 call

lynch-orlando-1078x515The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, June 22, 2016:

US Attorney General Lynch declined to answer question about redacted transcript of Orlando killer because she and the Obama administration were caught red-handed at the highest level. This is what we’ve dealing with in the last seven years: The administration is trying to censor reality. I was on the Kelly File on Fox to discuss.

Also see:

Loretta Lynch: ‘Islam,’ ‘ISIS’ to be Scrubbed from Orlando 911 Tapes

AP

AP

Update: DOJ releases unredacted Orlando jihad transcript after criticism

Breitbart, by Joel B. Pollak, June 19, 2016:

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch revealed Sunday that the government will release the transcripts of the 911 calls made by the Orlando terrorist during the attack last Sunday — scrubbed of any references to Islam or the Islamic State (ISIS).

She told Chuck Todd on NBC News’ Meet the Press that the “FBI is releasing a partial [printed] transcript of the killer’s calls with law enforcement, from inside the club,” but added: “What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda.”

Todd responded, incredulously: “We’re not going to hear him talk about those things?”

Lynch added: “We will hear him talk about some of those things, but we are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance and that.”

It is widely known that the terrorist, Omar Mateen, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State — also known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS — during the attack.

CNN reported last Sunday, citing a U.S. official: “Mateen called [911] dispatchers about 20 minutes into the attack, pledging allegiance to ISIS and mentioning the Boston Marathon bombers.”

Last week, the Washington Post reported that Mateen had called a local news station and said: “I did it for ISIS” and “I did it for the Islamic State.”

President Barack Obama himself has acknowledged that Mateen referred to ISIS (or “ISIL,” as the Obama administration insists on calling the group, swapping “Levant” for “Syria” for unknown reasons). However, he has insisted that Mateen likely was a “lone wolf,” and that any connection between the terror attack and radical Islam is either false or unhelpful to identify.

He defended his refusal to use the phrase “radical Islam,” saying that “there is no magic to the phrase “radical Islam.” He argued that connecting terrorists to Islam only furthered the interests of groups like the Islamic State, which wish to foment a war between the Islamic world and the West.

Lynch appears to be carrying out that instruction to an absurd extreme. While she claimed that “we’re trying to get as much information about this investigation out as possible,” she and the rest of the administration are deliberately suppressing any evidentiary link between Mateen and radical Islam, even though she has acknowledged that he did not mention other purported motives, such as prejudice against gays.

President Obama has also insisted that the culprit in Orlando was weak gun control laws — and, indirectly, the Republican Party, which has resisted further infringements on the Second Amendment.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, will be published by Regnery on July 25 and is available for pre-order through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

***

‘I did the shootings’: DOJ releases some redacted transcripts of Orlando killer’s phone calls during massacre:

***

Andrew McCarthy: Obama Administration ‘Becoming Sharia-Adherent’ in Scrubbing ‘Islam’ and ‘ISIS’ from Orlando Jihadi’s 911 Call

***

Loretta Lynch and the Partisan Agenda Behind Orlando Transcripts:

Also see:

Homeland Security Report Calls for Rejecting Terms ‘Jihad,’ Sharia’

An ISIS propaganda shows Omar Mateen who killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, with 'Islamic State' blazoned behind him / AP

An ISIS propaganda shows Omar Mateen who killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, with ‘Islamic State’ blazoned behind him / AP

Washington Free Beacon, by Bill Gertz, June 17, 2016:

A new Department of Homeland Security report urges rejecting use of Islamic terms such as “jihad” and “sharia” in programs aimed at countering terrorist radicalization among American youth.

The Homeland Security Advisory Council report recommends that the department focus on American milliennials by allocating up to $100 million in new funding. It also urges greater private sector cooperation, including with Muslim communities, to counter what is described as a “new generation of threats to the Homeland related to the threat of violent extremism.”

The funds would be used for hiring experts and new social media programs and technology to influence young people not to join terror groups.

“The department’s CVE efforts are an attempt to protect our nation’s young people from extremists who prey upon the Millennial generation,” the report says.

“The department must reframe the conversation to reflect this reality and design a robust program around the protection of our youth, which must include predator awareness and an understanding of radicalization. In doing so, our citizens will be better equipped for this threat.”

Under the section on terminology, the report calls for rejecting use of an “us versus them” mentality by shunning Islamic language in “Countering Violent Extremism” programs, or CVE, the Obama administration’s euphemism that seeks to avoid references to Islam.

Under a section on recommended actions on terminology, the report says DHS should “reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English.”

Government agencies should employ “American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma,’” states the June 2016 report by the Council’s countering violent extremism subcommittee.

Jihad is the Islamic concept of holy war that is the primary call to arms for Islamic terrorist groups around the world, including the Islamic State, al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood. Sharia law is the anti-democratic Islamic supremacist legal code that critics say has prevented U.S. Muslims from assimilating into American society. Takfir is the Arabic term for apostasy, and umma is the word used to describe the entire Muslim community.

The DHS report stated that to avoid a confrontational “us versus them” stance in public efforts to counter Islamic radicalization, government programs should use the term “American Muslim” instead of “Muslim American.”

The limits on counterterrorism terminology outlined in the report are the latest sign of verbal censorship within government imposed by President Obama. The president this week launched into an angry public denunciation of Republican critics of his policy of avoiding use of the expression “radical Islam.”

Obama sought to deny charges that political correctness was behind the policy of not linking Islamic terrorism to its religious roots, and dismissed those who favor highlighting the links as a Republican political ploy.

The comments prompted a backlash from counterterrorism experts who say that failing to publicly link Islamic terrorism to its religious tenets makes it more difficult to counter jihadist ideology.

The terrorist attack Sunday in Orlando was carried out by a radical Muslim, Omar Mateen, who declared loyalty to ISIS during the rampage that killed 49 people at a gay nightclub on Sunday. The FBI said Mateen was “radicalized” through the Internet.

President Obama’s program to counter ISIS came under fire from CIA Director John Brennan during a Senate hearing Thursday.

Some gains are being made in taking back territory controlled by ISIS and limiting its finances, according to Brennan.

“Unfortunately, despite all of our progress against ISIL on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach,” he said.

“The resources needed for terrorism are very modest, and the group would have to suffer even heavier losses on territory, manpower, and money for its terrorist capacity to decline significantly.”

The DHS report said the average age for foreign fighters joining ISIS is 26, with the Internet “playing a primary or contributing role” in radicalization.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kansas) a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, criticized the DHS language restrictions.

“The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Interim Report makes the dangerous recommendation that the Obama administration continue to deny the threat that radical Islamic terrorism poses,” Pompeo said.

“Jihadists are the ones who have made this fight ‘us vs. them’ with every violent terrorist attack—from bringing down the World Trade Center towers, killing American soldiers overseas, beheading journalists, or shooting Americans in Orlando,” he added. “DHS’s emphasis here on political correctness is absolutely dangerous and places America and our military at risk.”

In the Senate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) said the administration’s failure to properly address radical Islam has made the country less safe.

“Over and over again, we have seen the Obama administration having ample information to stop a terrorist attack, and yet because of the political correctness, because of the ideology of this administration that won’t even say the word ’jihad,’ won’t even say the words ’radical Islamic terrorism,’ they look the other way and the attacks go forward,” Cruz said in a Senate floor speech Thursday.

Sebastian Gorka, a counterterrorism expert, said that banning the jihadist terminology is similar to “Newspeak,” the fictional language used for totalitarian control in George Orwell’s book 1984.

“This is simply outrageous from the perspective of national security,” said Gorka, the Horner chair of military theory at Marine Corps University.

“Banning words that our political elite don’t like is not only a contravention of the First Amendment, it directly endangers the lives of Americans,” he added.

“When the enemy that slaughters our citizens in Orlando, San Bernardino, and Boston calls themselves ‘jihadis’ no one, not even the president, has the right to censor that reality and give them another name.”

Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official now with the American Enterprise Institute, said the report’s concerns about terminology are hindering counterterrorism efforts.

“If the Obama team and DHS used half the effort they expend debating vocabulary actually advancing strategies to stymie and defeat enemies, America would be safer,” he said.

The report also recommends using former terrorists in “programming and messaging” efforts, including “far right, anti-government, and other extremists groups.” The report also mentions white supremacist, sovereign citizen, and anarchist groups as posing a terror threat but makes no mention of left-wing extremist groups.

The report also calls for a focus on “gender diversity of youth through careful attention to the range of push and pull factors that attract individuals of differing gender.” The gender focus was not further explained.

On the use of social media, “the department must fully understand and leverage social media in its policy and programmatic activities,” the report said.

America’s children, the report says, will grow up in a world of expanding human ingenuity and knowledge. “As that process of human evolution, including the expansion of freedom and liberties across the globe proceeds, our government must remain vigilant, adapt, and evolve to protect them,” the report concludes, adding that “we must do so by demonstrating faith in the American people, in their government, and we must be confident in the power of America’s ideas.”

A DHS spokeswoman had no immediate comment.

Farah Pandith, a Council on Foreign Relations fellow, and chairman of the panel that produced the report, did not return emails seeking comment.

The EU is Coming to Close Down Your Free Speech

1455Gatestone Institute, by Douglas Murray, June 11, 2016:

  • The German Chancellor was not interested in the reinforcement of Europe’s external borders, the re-erection of its internal borders, the institution of a workable asylum vetting system and the repatriation of people who had lied to gain entry into Europe. Instead, Chancellor Merkel wanted to know how Facebook’s founder could help her restrict the free speech of Europeans, on Facebook and on other social media.
  • Then, on May 31, the European Union announced a new online speech code to be enforced by four major tech companies, including Facebook and YouTube.
  • It was clear from the outset that Facebook has a definitional problem as well as a political bias in deciding on these targets. What is Facebook’s definition of ‘racism’? What is its definition of ‘xenophobia’? What, come to that, is its definition of ‘hate speech’?
  • Of course the EU is a government — and an unelected government at that — so its desire not just to avoid replying to its critics — but to criminalise their views and ban their contrary expressions — is as bad as the government of any country banning or criminalising the expression of opinion which is not adulatory of the government.
  • People must speak up — must speak up now, and must speak up fast — in support of freedom of speech before it is taken away from them. It is, sadly, not an overstatement to say that our entire future depends on it.

It is nine months since Angela Merkel and Mark Zuckerberg tried to solve Europe’s migrant crisis. Of course having caused the migrant crisis by announcing the doors of Europe as open to the entire third-world, Angela Merkel particularly would have been in a good position actually to try to solve this crisis.

But the German Chancellor was not interested in the reinforcement of Europe’s external borders, the re-erection of its internal borders, the institution of a workable asylum vetting system and the repatriation of people who had lied to gain entry into Europe. Instead, Chancellor Merkel was interested in Facebook.

When seated with Mark Zuckerberg, Frau Merkel wanted to know how the Facebook founder could help her restrict the free speech of Europeans, on Facebook and on other social media.Speaking to Zuckerberg at a UN summit last September (and not aware that the microphones were picking her up) she asked what could be done to restrict people writing things on Facebook which were critical of her migration policy. ‘Are you working on this?’ she asked him. ‘Yeah’, Zuckerberg replied.

In the months that followed, we learned that this was not idle chatter over lunch. In January of this year, Facebook launched its ‘Initiative for civil courage online’, committing a million Euros to fund non-governmental organisations in its work to counter ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’ posts online. It also promised to remove ‘hate speech’ and expressions of ‘xenophobia’ from the Facebook website.

It was clear from the outset that Facebook has a definitional problem as well as a political bias in deciding on these targets. What is Facebook’s definition of ‘racism’? What is its definition of ‘xenophobia’? What, come to that, is its definition of ‘hate speech’? As for the political bias, why had Facebook not previously considered how, for instance, to stifle expressions of open-borders sentiments on Facebook? There are many people in Europe who have argued that the world should have no borders and that Europe in particular should be able to be lived in by anyone who so wishes. Why have people expressing such views on Facebook (and there are many) not found their views censored and their posts removed? Are such views not ‘extreme’?

One problem with this whole area — and a problem which has clearly not occurred to Facebook — is that these are questions which do not even have the same answer from country to country. Any informed thinker on politics knows that there are laws that apply in some countries that do not — and often should not — apply in others. Contrary to the views of many transnational ‘progressives’, the world does not have one set of universal laws and certainly does not have universal customs. Hate-speech laws are to a very great extent an enforcement of the realm of customs.

Read more

Pamela Geller: Facebook’s Assurances Of Neutrality ‘Utterly Hollow’

Geller-speaking-moments-before-the-Garland-Shooting-e1433506916264-640x479Breitbart, by Allum Bokhari, June 12, 2016:

Islam critic and American Freedom Defence Initiative President Pamela Geller slammed Facebook in an interview with Breitbart this evening, rejecting their pretenses of political neutrality and urging conservatives to fight back.

Geller’s 50,000-strong Facebook group, “Stop Islamization Of America” was removed from Facebook earlier today, despite being active for over five years, due to allegedly “hateful content.” A few hours later, her own Facebook account received a 30-day ban after she made a post criticizing President Obama for his response to the Orlando shootings.

fb

The timing of Facebook’s sudden burst of censorship – just a day after the Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen carried out the deadliest terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 – is hard to ignore. It also casts doubt on the social network’s claims to political neutrality, which the company repeatedly pushed during last month’s “Trending News” scandal.

In an interview with Breitbart, Geller emphasized the need to fight back against Facebook:

AB: Facebook say they took down your page because of their rule against “hateful, obscene, or threatening” content. What’s your response?

PG: It is not hateful, obscene, or threatening to oppose jihad terror such as we saw in Orlando last night. Truth is not hateful or obscene. What is hateful, obscene and threatening is that Facebook is moving to silence everyone who speaks honestly about the motivating ideology behind such attacks.

AB: Why do you think they took the page down now, of all times?

PG: They are in full damage control mode. Orlando showed jihad for what it is. They’re committed to obscuring that knowledge and making sure people remain ignorant and complacent about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.

AB: They’ve also banned your own account, for thirty days. Is this the first time that’s happened to you? What are they so afraid of?

PG: No, it has happened before, when I get too close to truths they want to cover up. They’re afraid these truths will get out, and that people will start acting to remove the feckless and traitorous leaders who got us into this fix. They are blocking and banning me now, especially now, when people are looking past the media myths provided by terror-tied groups like Hamas-CAIR.

AB: Facebook spent much of last month assuring the public that they aren’t biased against conservatives. What are we to think of those assurances, in light of what happened today?

PG: They’re utterly and absolutely hollow.

AB: How should critics of Islam respond to this? Protest? Boycott Facebook? Seek out other platforms?

PG: By continuing to speak the truth. Yes, protest. Yes, establish other platforms. But Facebook is too large to be ignored, or to be hurt by a boycott. Facebook quislings must be called out. If voices of freedom and truth leave it, we will have no significant platform. Better we keep up the pressure on Facebook to stop trying to silence conservatives.

AB: Do you think Facebook’s ban on “hateful” content will ever encompass Islamist content on the platform?

PG: Never. As far as the left is concerned, Islamic jihad, Jew-hatred, misogyny, et al aren’t hateful until non-Muslims report on them. Then they still aren’t hateful – only the reporting by the non-Muslims is.

You can follow Allum Bokhari on Twitter, add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to abokhari@breitbart.com.

All Your Social Media Belong to the EU

wer

Facebook, Google and Twitter sign up for propaganda and censorship.

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, June 10, 2016:

For a decade, the top search result for “EU referendum” on Google was the political blog EU Referendum. Then it was abruptly displaced by solidly pro-EU media outlets. It appeared that someone at Google had decided that search traffic should be driven to pro-EU sites. Ingrid Carlqvist, a Swedish columnist who covers, among other things, migrant violence, at Gatestone, had her Facebook account deleted after posting a video detailing migrant rapes in Sweden.

These seemingly isolated incidents fit into a larger pattern as Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter helped create and signed a “code of conduct” banning hate speech. Facebook had already become notorious for its political agenda while Twitter had created a Trust and Safety Council filled with extremist left-wing groups like Feminist Frequency to censor the politically incorrect.

Google has historically been a pro-free speech outlier. Its politics have never been ambiguous, but it has eschewed the overt censorship of some of its new partners working to keep the EU free of political dissent. But the code of conduct goes well beyond censorship. The companies will be working to strengthen their “ongoing partnerships with civil society organisations who will help flag content that promotes incitement to violence and hateful conduct”. That amounts to empowering left-wing advocacy groups to dictate content removal to major companies. It means that not only Twitter, but Facebook, Google and Microsoft will get their own Trust and Safety Council. It may be called something else. It may not even have a name. But it will have power. That’s what this really means.

And it’s only a starting point in a larger propaganda initiative.

“The IT Companies and the European Commission, recognising the value of independent counter speech against hateful rhetoric and prejudice, aim to continue their work in identifying and promoting independent counter-narratives,” the press release reads.

Even more than the censorship, the counter-narratives push represents a troubling development.

Left-wing groups won’t just be embedded as censors, but major tech firms will be expected to promote their agendas. And the biggest resource that companies with massive social media platforms have at their disposal isn’t mere money. It’s the ability to decide what is trending and what isn’t.

If a story about Islamic terrorism trends, will Facebook or Twitter be expected to promote a counter-narrative from an Islamic group? How exactly is this any different than traditional propaganda?

“The IT Companies to intensify their work with CSOs to deliver best practice training on countering hateful rhetoric and prejudice and increase the scale of their proactive outreach to CSOs to help them deliver effective counter speech campaigns. The European Commission, in cooperation with Member States, to contribute to this endeavour by taking steps to map CSOs’ specific needs and demands in this respect,” the release tells us.

CSO stands for Civil Society Organization. It’s used more often now that NGO carries with it an air of contempt. That last sentence informs us that the CSOs will have “demands.” The European Commission will help leverage and assemble these demands. Meanwhile major tech firms will be working to aid these CSOs in pushing their agenda.

What will this look like? We got a preview of it with Facebook’s “Initiative for Civil Courage Online”. Facebook had been facing pressure from Germany’s Merkel who was worried over public outrage at crimes committed by her Muslim migrant arrivals. Censorship was obviously the order of the day.

The Initiative promoted Klick It Out which, in properly Orwellian fashion, urged people to “See It. Report It.” The “It” being “Social Media Discrimination.” And then users were expected to “Klick It Out”. It was a failure. But Facebook and friends are doubling down.

Tech companies love the idea of creating “counter-narratives” because it’s cheaper to throw some money at an NGO or CSO, or to boost their profile, than to invest still more money in censorship. It’s not because they have a bias for free speech, but because active censorship, even when outsourced to poorer countries, which it often is, demands more resources. Pushing an agenda is cheap.

And the goal of companies like Facebook is to increase usage, rather than reduce it, which is why COO Sheryl Sandberg championed “like attacks” in which users flood the pages of bigots with their own speech. But the code of conduct is a thorough rejection of any of that self-interested libertarianism. Censorship is packaged together with agenda pushing. There might be like attacks, but what the EU really wanted was deletion and promotion for the groups that its leaders support. And they got it.

Some fraction of these efforts may be directed at ISIS supporters, but there is no particular reason to be optimistic about that. By putting CSOs first, the message is that this isn’t about counter-terrorism, but about promoting one set of political agendas at the expense of another. Much like Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council, this is about selecting who should speak and who should be silenced.

Programs like these operate under the umbrella of fighting extremism. And extremism, unlike blowing up buses or beheading hostages, is in the eye of the beholder. And the beholder is a tech company standing on the left while looking to the right. The obsession with radicalization treats lawful speech as the precursor to violence. It also assumes that Muslim terrorism emerges from a cycle of extremism between Muslims and critics of Islam. Silence the critics and you stop the terrorism.

European governments, like those of Angela Merkel, are far less worried about Salafists than they are about domestic political dissent. When Merkel berated Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over insufficient censorship, it wasn’t because she objected to the pipeline that feeds Muslims from Germany into ISIS. Muslim terrorism is inconvenient, but political dissent is politically explosive. Social media comprise an alternative organizing force that counters the dominance of media narratives. That makes it a threat.

Attempts to silence more prominent voices like Richard North and Ingrid Carlqvist have run into a backlash, but it’s impossible to rally in support of each ordinary person who has their account shut down or their blog pushed down in the rankings for having politically incorrect views. Social media at their best bring people together. This initiative is about disrupting social organizations that are disapproved of.

It is about preserving the dominance of a government-media narrative while promoting astroturf organizations that try to appear independent, but really echo that very same narrative.

Private companies have the right to determine what content appears on their platforms. But Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter have become part of an alliance with governments and advocacy groups to maintain a particular narrative. They will not simply be removing hateful content. Instead they have undertaken to play a role in putting forward a particular set of ideas by particular governments.

That’s propaganda and it is the opposite of how the internet was meant to be used.

The deal puts a series of private organizations, backed by EU government power, in charge of determining the content of social media, both positive and negative. Social media were meant to be centered around the user. Instead this deal displaces the user and replaces him or her with the EU.

***

Also see:

European Union Declares War on Internet Free Speech

This week, the EU, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, unveiled a "code of conduct" to combat the spread of "illegal hate speech" online in Europe. The next day, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone's Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called "Sweden's Migrant Rape Epidemic."

This week, the EU, in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe. The next day, Facebook suspended the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert, after she posted a Gatestone video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.”

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, June 3, 2016:

  • Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the European Union’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the EU itself.
  • Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours — as “Orwellian.”
  • “By deciding that ‘xenophobic’ comment in reaction to the crisis is also ‘racist,’ Facebook has made the view of the majority of the European people… into ‘racist’ views, and so is condemning the majority of Europeans as ‘racist.'” — Douglas Murray.
  • In January 2013, Facebook suspended the account of Khaled Abu Toameh after he wrote about corruption in the Palestinian Authority. The account was reopened 24 hours later, but with the two posts deleted and no explanation.

The European Union (EU), in partnership with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft, has unveiled a “code of conduct” to combat the spread of “illegal hate speech” online in Europe.

Proponents of the initiative argue that in the aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, a crackdown on “hate speech” is necessary to counter jihadist propaganda online.

Opponents counter that the initiative amounts to an assault on free speech in Europe. They say that the EU’s definition of “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” is so vague that it could include virtually anything deemed politically incorrect by European authorities, including criticism of mass migration, Islam or even the European Union itself.

Some Members of the European Parliament have characterized the EU’s code of online conduct — which requires “offensive” material to be removed from the Internet within 24 hours, and replaced with “counter-narratives” — as “Orwellian.”

Read more

CENSORED: Facebook deletes a Gatestone author’s page!

icGatestone Institute, June 2, 2016:

Dear Readers,

On Tuesday, the European Union (EU) announced a new online speech code to be enforced by four major tech companies, including Facebook and YouTube.

On Wednesday, Facebook deleted the account of Ingrid Carlqvist, Gatestone’s Swedish expert.

It’s no coincidence.

Ingrid had posted our latest video to her Facebook feed — called “Sweden’s Migrant Rape Epidemic.” As you can see, Ingrid calmly lays out the facts and statistics, all of which are meticulously researched.

It’s a video version of this research paper that Gatestone published last year. The video has gone viral — racking up more than 80,000 views in its first two days.

But the EU is quite candid: it is applying a political lens to their censorship, and it now has teams of political informants — with the Orwellian title of “trusted reporters” — to report any cases of “xenophobia” or “hate speech” to Facebook for immediate deletion.

It’s political censorship. It’s outrageous. And it’s contrary to our western values of free speech, political freedom and the separation of mosque and state. But in another way, it’s a tremendous compliment — the world’s censors think that Gatestone Institute’s work is important enough and persuasive enough that it needs to be silenced.

Well, not if we have anything to say about it. We raised such a ruckus about this attack that the Swedish media started reporting on Facebook’s heavy-handed censorship. It backfired, and Facebook went into damage-control mode. They put Ingrid’s account back up — without any explanation or apology. Ironically, their censorship only gave Ingrid’s video more attention.

Facebook and the EU have backed down — for today. But they’re deadly serious about stopping ideas they don’t like. They’ll be back.

So what should we do? I think there is only one thing we can do: continue to produce our well-researched reports, and to expand our online presence with even more videos!

As you know, just last week we started releasing high-quality original videos, hosted by our Gatestone experts. Our first four videos have already been watched by more than 150,000 people!

It’s a great way to make our research come alive — and as Ingrid’s viral video shows, to get our ideas noticed.

So I want Gatestone’s talented experts to make more videos — a lot more! We need to win the battle of ideas. Can you help?

Each video costs us approximately $500 to produce. But as Facebook’s attack on us shows, they’re worth every penny.

Will you help us do that?

If you can sponsor one video, for $500, that would be a powerful statement of your support for our ideas — and your resistance to the Facebook/EU censorship. But even a $50 gift would be so helpful — if just 100 Gatestone supporters chipped in $50, that’s enough to produce ten more powerful video presentations — any one of which could go viral too!

Facebook and the European Union thought they could shut us up. I want to prove them wrong. Please click here, to help us fight back. Do it for Ingrid!

Yours truly,

Nina Rosenwald
President and Founder, Gatestone Institute

P.S. Click here to see all of our YouTube videos so far. I want to do so many more, and with more of our experts. It’s a great way to spread our message, especially in the age of short, shareable videos. Please consider contributing $50, $500 or whatever you can!

P.P.S. We’ve never been censored this way before. I think it means we’re making a difference. What do you think?

Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.
Contributions to Gatestone Institute are tax deductible in the U.S. to the full extent of the law.

Twitter and Facebook Vow to Eliminate ‘Hate Speech’

facebook_twitter_intergration

Henceforth only far-Left and pro-jihad views will be allowed.

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, June 1, 2016:

Could it soon be illegal to oppose jihad terror on the Internet?

AP reported that “the European Union reached an agreement Tuesday with some of the world’s biggest social media firms, including Facebook and Twitter, on ways to combat the spread of hate speech online.”

Not only Facebook and Twitter, but also YouTube and Microsoft, “have committed to ‘quickly and efficiently’ tackle illegal hate speech directed against anyone over issues of race, color, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin. The sites have often been used by terrorist organizations to relay messages and entice hatred against certain individuals or groups.”

Vera Jourova, whom AP identifies as “the EU commissioner responsible for justice, consumers and gender equality,” explained: “The internet is a place for free speech, not hate speech.” She added that the new rules would “ensure that public incitement to violence to hatred has ‘no place online.’” But incitement to violence isn’t all that the social media giants are planning to stamp out: Karen White, Twitter’s European head of public policy, declared: “We remain committed to letting the Tweets flow. However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate.”

The problem with both Jourova’s and White’s statements is that they assume that “hate speech” is an entity that can be identified objectively, when actually it is a subjective judgment based on one’s own political preconceptions. And given the years-long insistence from Leftists and Islamic supremacists that any honest discussion of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism constitutes “hate speech,” these new rules could mean the end of opposition to jihad terror on the Internet.

Consider, for example, what Twitter does not consider to be “hate speech.” A Muslim named Obaid Karki, @stsheetrock on Twitter, who runs a website headed “Obaid Karki St.Sheetrock’s Painfulpolitics Offensive Comedy Hepcat” and another called is called “Suicide Bombers Magazine” posted this on one of them last Sunday: “Robert Spencer mustn’t [be] featured but lynched from his scrotum along with Zionists scumbags, Pamela Geller, Pat Condell, Daniel Pipes, Debbie Schlussel and JIHADWATCH Jackass duo Baron Bodissey & Geert Wilders for inspiring Anders Behring Breivik to [kill] innocent students in 2011.”

Neither Bodissey or Wilders actually run Jihad Watch – I do — and I didn’t inspire Breivik to do anything, but what is interesting about Karki’s loony message is that he posted this call for me and others to be lynched on Twitter.

Twitter supposedly has a policy against death threats. “The Twitter Rules” say: “Violent threats (direct or indirect): You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.” I therefore duly reported this one – but as of this writing, it has not been taken down (in fact, Karki posted it along with variants of it several times). I reported Karki’s tweet (which he republished on Twitter several times, and on Monday received this message from Twitter: “Thank you for letting us know about your issue. We’ve investigated the account and reported Tweets for violent threats and abusive behavior, and have found that it’s currently not violating the Twitter Rules (https://twitter.com/rules).”

Read more

Also see:

Canadian Marc Lebuis on the business of Islamophobia

3187833668

Center For Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, June 1, 2016:

Welcome to Secure Freedom Radio. This is Frank Gaffney, your host and guide for what I think of as an intelligence briefing on the war for the free world. We don’t often get good news in that war these days, I’m sorry to say, but I am very pleased to be able to present a little bit, at least for the moment. And to call back to our microphones for that purpose a man I’ve come to admire greatly and who has been indispensable in bringing about this bit of good news. He is Marc LeBuis. He is the founder and director of Point de Bascule, or Tipping Point, a web-based, investigative magazine that you can find online. It’s based in Montreal, Canada. And this bit of good news comes there, from Canada, from Quebec province, specifically. And to talk a little bit about it, I’m delighted to say congratulations and welcome, Marc LeBuis.

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, thank you. And thank you for having me, Frank.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

So tell us about this development. Bill 59 is something that you’ve been warning about for some time. You’ve been working hard against. And I think as a result, in no small measure of your efforts, it’s come undone. Talk a little bit about what happened.

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, Bill 59, of course, is technically a censorship bill. And the current government in place, it’s called the Quebec liberal government, gave in after a lot of a backlash, the backlash against the bill would not die down. Now the entire civil society, I could say almost with just a couple of exceptions, have been opposing this bill systematically for months. It’s been almost a year that it’s been very actively pushed forward. And then, there’s the opposition to the bill, PQ Representative Agnes Maltais who stood technically almost alone, she is doing what I think in English we call a filibuster where she would systematically oppose the bill in what she called intelligent opposition. So out of sixty to eighty hours of debate over the bill, only one and a half articles out of something like twenty-five were read. They were systematically asking question. And Agnes Maltais basically got it. There’s quite a few politicians, they may participate in these types of debate, but sometimes they don’t really get it. Well, she did get it. She expressed a couple of weeks ago that she felt that this was, out of about twenty years of [UNCLEAR] as a politician, she felt that this was the most important and significant debate that Quebec has ever faced in terms of the danger that it was for democracy.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

This is so important. And Marc, I want to make sure while we acknowledge and express appreciation for this sort of Horatius at the Bridge in the parliament, Agnes Maltais, your own role in helping get that civil society engaged on this issue, understanding the implications of this censorship in the name of not offending Muslims was incalculably important. And you may not want to boast about it, but let me just say thank you to you specifically. I was struck by the minister of justice in Quebec, Stephanie Vallee, indicating that while this kind of regulation of so-called hate speech is adopted elsewhere, she said, quote, we’re not ready for that, unquote. So it doesn’t necessarily mean this is a commutation of sentence, maybe it’s just a stay of execution. But in that regard, Marc, talk if you would a little bit about how things seems to be developing in terms of trying to classify as racism so-called Islamophobia and what implications it might have.

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, there is – there is what we call now, what we’re noticing, a form of axis, I mean, Islamophobia bills or efforts or lobbies trying to push Islamophobia. We know that it’s happening all over the West. But there is a particular axis right now developing which we call the Paris-Brussels-Quebec-Ottawa Axis. There is now an organisation in – based out of Paris, led by a man by the name of Marwan Muhammad who’s very close to Tariq Ramadan, close also to organisations that are linked with Yusuf al-Qaradawi out of Qatar. And he’s also very, very close to not just Muslim Brotherhood operatives but also other Salafist-based Islamist operatives who are known to have radical views in France. And they’re working together with, for example, recently they have met very, very powerful lobbies out of Canada called the CAIR Canada or the new name, the NCCM, that they’re using, and they seem to be coordinating a lot of effort to push institutions and policies inside of Canada to be able to qualify or equate Islamophobia as a racism and this would be happening. What that means, it’s even worse than having a bill that would do censorship. It would take on the current laws on racism and just basically hook onto them or piggyback on them and then would be able to have the same effect in order to kill free speech, kill criticism of anything that’s related to Islamist activities in Canada and maybe in Europe.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Now I know, Marc LeBuis, that you have been accused of being an Islamophobe, I certainly have, many of those we work with have. Just dissect for us this concept that this is in fact some sort of racism. There is no race. Islam is practiced by people of many different races. And what I think we all are concentrating on is not even Islam itself as much as it is the political, military, legal doctrine of shariah that its Islamic supremacist adherents are trying to impose on all of us. And if we were to accede to this idea that this is somehow a racist activity, where would a country like Canada find itself? Where would, you know, people like you who are warning about what’s coming if they’re not careful?

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, there definitely would be, even more difficult than it is now to be able to name the threat that we’re facing, specifically the jihadist threat. It would be extremely difficult to – notions of infiltration, and I’m talking about serious infiltration inside government agencies, when we would try to expose how certain lobbies, associations, or individuals are trying to penetrate a political party, a police force, or even a legal institution. It recalls –

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Or the government itself for that matter.

MARC LeBUIS:

Or the government itself. There’s this leader called Jamal Badawi out of Canada, and I think he’s very known in the United States, who basically, in an interview in the early 2000s said that we should – Muslims should penetrate government institutions, specifically become judges so they can use their own personal discretion in order to avoid applying legal references that will go against shariah. So he’s encouraging Muslims to enter and penetrate and infiltrate. Become lawyers, police officers, and any type of form of positions of power that allows them to have a certain amount of discretionary power.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

As you look at this effort on the part of the Islamists, these Islamic supremacists, to promote shariah, when you find yourself confronting these pressures, Marc, just as the takeaway from your efforts on Bill 59, what should all of us learn from it and take heart from?

MARC LeBUIS:

Well, on our part, I think having the information well-structured, intelligently put together, was able to help some of the people that are pushing these policies, some politicians that could understand what’s happening, to be able to be well-equipped to articulate a defence and even, sometimes, even be on the offensive. So documenting what these organisations are doing, quoting them, knowing exactly – and also, exactly like you said, the memorandum is a perfect example. There are so many plans out there to demonstrate that there is a coordinated effort to disrupt our civilisation, to change laws. There are plans out there that clearly express that.

FRANK GAFFNEY:

Marc, we have to leave it at that for the moment, but there’s so much more to talk about. I look forward to doing so with you and just want to say, hats off to you and all of those in Canada who have fought this important fight. We’ll talk with you again very soon. Next up, Kyle Shideler of the Center for Security Policy joins us. We’ll talk about how this problem is manifesting itself here thanks to our so-called friends, the Saudis, among others. That and more straight ahead.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

EXCLUSIVE: Twitter Shadowbanning ‘Real and Happening Every Day’ Says Inside Source

twitter-jail-AP-640x480Breitbart, by  MILO YIANNOPOULOS, Feb. 16, 2016:

Rumours that Twitter has begun ‘shadowbanning’ politically inconvenient users have been confirmed by a source inside the company, who spoke exclusively to Breitbart Tech. His claim was corroborated by a senior editor at a major publisher.

According to the source, Twitter maintains a ‘whitelist’ of favoured Twitter accounts and a ‘blacklist’ of unfavoured accounts. Accounts on the whitelist are prioritised in search results, even if they’re not the most popular among users. Meanwhile, accounts on the blacklist have their posts hidden from both search results and other users’ timelines.

Our source was backed up by a senior editor at a major digital publisher, who told Breitbart that Twitter told him it deliberately whitelists and blacklists users. He added that he was afraid of the site’s power, noting that his tweets could disappear from users’ timelines if he got on the wrong side of the company.

Shadowbanning, sometimes known as “Stealth Banning” or “Hell Banning,” is commonly used by online community managers to block content posted by spammers. Instead of banning a user directly (which would alert the spammer to their status, prompting them to create a new account), their content is merely hidden from public view.

For site owners, the ideal shadowban is when a user never realizes he’s been shadowbanned.

However, Twitter isn’t merely targeting spammers. For weeks, users have been reporting that tweets from populist conservatives, members of the alternative right, cultural libertarians, and other anti-PC dissidents have disappeared from their timelines.

Among the users complaining of shadowbans are sci-fi author and alt-right figurehead Vox Day, geek culture blogger “Daddy Warpig,” and the popular pro-Trump account Ricky Vaughn. League of Gamers founder and former World of Warcraft team lead Mark Kern, as well as adult actress and anti-censorship activist Mercedes Carrera, have also reported that their tweets are not appearing on the timelines of their followers.

The pattern of shadowban reports, which skews towards the alt-right, the populist right, and cultural libertarians, follows close on the heels of Twitter’s establishment of a “Trust and Safety Council” packed with left-wing advocacy groups, as well as Islamic research centre the Wahid Institute.

It also follows my prediction that Twitter would use its influence to interfere in the 2016 presidential election by muffling conservative voices on the platform.

For close to a year now, Breitbart has covered Twitter’s march towards political censorship. In May 2015 Allum Bokhari reported that the site had begun to experiment with shadowbans, ostensibly to protect users from abuse. Then, as now, it was suspected that “protecting users from abuse” was an excuse to implement a system that would later be used for political censorship.

With shadowbans now confirmed by an inside source, there is little room for doubt that the platform is intent on silencing conservatives. Furthermore, it has demonstrated a complete lack of regard for transparency, concealing its shadowbanning system from users and hiding its political bias behind a veneer of opposition to online abuse. (In reality, the site turns a blind eye to abuse from left-wingers.)

Users in search of a transparent, politically unbiased platform will soon have to find — or build — an alternative.

Follow Milo Yiannopoulos (@Nero) on Twitter and Facebook, or write to him at milo@breitbart.com. Android users can download Milo Alert! to be notified about new articles when they are published. 

***

Ezra Levant reports that some German carnival goers made fun of Cologne’s mayor for suggesting that women keep Muslim migrant rapists “at arm’s length.” Twitter blocked the photo of their costumes — for being “Islamophobic”?

Also see: