Title: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: cc on October 22, 2020, 12:55:46 AM
Post by: cc on October 22, 2020, 12:55:46 AM
It is an exhibition of blatant and massive bias during the exercise of the most central event of every democracy — the election of its leaders
As I write it is now the seventh day — and a bare two weeks till the presidential vote — that Twitter, Facebook and their co-operative partners in the television networks and mainline newspapers have smothered or refused to print or broadcast the devastating reports concerning the dealings of Hunter Biden and his father, presidential candidate Joe Biden.
The suppression of a major, no, an explosive and potentially result-changing news story by 90 per cent of the establishment media, is a journalistic crime.
It is the willing, the voluntary adoption by a (once) free press of the practice of information control that up to this period has been the hallmark, solely, of tinpot tyrannies, Communist governments everywhere, and most notably in the modern era the present information-throttling government of China.
It is the willing adoption by a (once) free press of information control
It is an exhibition of blatant, undeniable and massive bias during the exercise of the most central event of every democracy — the election of its leaders. A great swathe of the media of the United States is deliberately — by refusing to exercise its proper function, and by acting as guardian and accessory to the campaign of its favourite, Mr. Biden — nullifying its purpose, wrecking its prestige and standing with the public, and practicing the single largest dereliction of its democratic function since the founding of the republic.
All under the specious, hollow anti-morality of "If it hurts Donald Trump, it is not only justifiable, but righteous."
A child of five, or the mute beasts of the field would find tongue to tell you that if some equally potentially damaging story placed Donald Trump Jr. in its crosshairs and implicated his father, it would be crowding the screens of Facebook and Twitter; the Washington Post and the New York Times would have exhausted the nation's supply of newsprint with special and interminable reports of its every minutiae; and television's main talking-heads would be choking with the zeal to report it and damnify Trump.
Should anyone want something of an honest, independent and clear view of what is happening, turn to the recent utterances of Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar, professor at George Washington University Law School, and frequent witness at U.S. Congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues.
Prof. Turley is NOT a Trump supporter. He is something far more significant and singular in these partisan-insane times — a fair and intelligent mind. Here's just a few of his observations — which up until recent days would be the views of everyone with the slightest understanding of democracy and a free press:
"... The companies' actions are an outrageous example of open censorship and bias. It shows how companies effectively can become state media working for one party.
"... The point is that free speech allows us to call out those who say false or reckless things without Twitter engaging in private censorship. As soon as these companies embraced censorship, it put social media on the slippery slope of biased and selective speech controls.
There are others of equal standing making the same points. I'd add a few of my own. Where are the journalism schools and their mentor-professors? Why are they not howling in outrage at a canonical violation of the standards of objectivity and fair-dealing, the hallmarks of an independent press?
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 06:31:21 AM
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 06:31:21 AM
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 10:19:50 AM
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 10:19:50 AM
Rex Murphy: Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions(//https)
It is an exhibition of blatant and massive bias during the exercise of the most central event of every democracy — the election of its leaders
As I write it is now the seventh day — and a bare two weeks till the presidential vote — that Twitter, Facebook and their co-operative partners in the television networks and mainline newspapers have smothered or refused to print or broadcast the devastating reports concerning the dealings of Hunter Biden and his father, presidential candidate Joe Biden.
The suppression of a major, no, an explosive and potentially result-changing news story by 90 per cent of the establishment media, is a journalistic crime.
It is the willing, the voluntary adoption by a (once) free press of the practice of information control that up to this period has been the hallmark, solely, of tinpot tyrannies, Communist governments everywhere, and most notably in the modern era the present information-throttling government of China.
It is the willing adoption by a (once) free press of information control
It is an exhibition of blatant, undeniable and massive bias during the exercise of the most central event of every democracy — the election of its leaders. A great swathe of the media of the United States is deliberately — by refusing to exercise its proper function, and by acting as guardian and accessory to the campaign of its favourite, Mr. Biden — nullifying its purpose, wrecking its prestige and standing with the public, and practicing the single largest dereliction of its democratic function since the founding of the republic.
All under the specious, hollow anti-morality of "If it hurts Donald Trump, it is not only justifiable, but righteous."
A child of five, or the mute beasts of the field would find tongue to tell you that if some equally potentially damaging story placed Donald Trump Jr. in its crosshairs and implicated his father, it would be crowding the screens of Facebook and Twitter; the Washington Post and the New York Times would have exhausted the nation's supply of newsprint with special and interminable reports of its every minutiae; and television's main talking-heads would be choking with the zeal to report it and damnify Trump.
Should anyone want something of an honest, independent and clear view of what is happening, turn to the recent utterances of Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar, professor at George Washington University Law School, and frequent witness at U.S. Congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues.
Prof. Turley is NOT a Trump supporter. He is something far more significant and singular in these partisan-insane times — a fair and intelligent mind. Here's just a few of his observations — which up until recent days would be the views of everyone with the slightest understanding of democracy and a free press:
"... The companies' actions are an outrageous example of open censorship and bias. It shows how companies effectively can become state media working for one party.
"... The point is that free speech allows us to call out those who say false or reckless things without Twitter engaging in private censorship. As soon as these companies embraced censorship, it put social media on the slippery slope of biased and selective speech controls."... Despite a letter (signed by) dozens of former officials saying this is Russian disinformation, the FBI reportedly has confirmed that it has the laptop and it is not Russian disinformation" (my emphasis).
There are others of equal standing making the same points. I'd add a few of my own. Where are the journalism schools and their mentor-professors? Why are they not howling in outrage at a canonical violation of the standards of objectivity and fair-dealing, the hallmarks of an independent press?
That letter is BS.
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 11:01:29 AM
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 11:01:29 AM
Rex Murphy: Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions(//https)
It is an exhibition of blatant and massive bias during the exercise of the most central event of every democracy — the election of its leaders
As I write it is now the seventh day — and a bare two weeks till the presidential vote — that Twitter, Facebook and their co-operative partners in the television networks and mainline newspapers have smothered or refused to print or broadcast the devastating reports concerning the dealings of Hunter Biden and his father, presidential candidate Joe Biden.
The suppression of a major, no, an explosive and potentially result-changing news story by 90 per cent of the establishment media, is a journalistic crime.
It is the willing, the voluntary adoption by a (once) free press of the practice of information control that up to this period has been the hallmark, solely, of tinpot tyrannies, Communist governments everywhere, and most notably in the modern era the present information-throttling government of China.
It is the willing adoption by a (once) free press of information control
It is an exhibition of blatant, undeniable and massive bias during the exercise of the most central event of every democracy — the election of its leaders. A great swathe of the media of the United States is deliberately — by refusing to exercise its proper function, and by acting as guardian and accessory to the campaign of its favourite, Mr. Biden — nullifying its purpose, wrecking its prestige and standing with the public, and practicing the single largest dereliction of its democratic function since the founding of the republic.
All under the specious, hollow anti-morality of "If it hurts Donald Trump, it is not only justifiable, but righteous."
A child of five, or the mute beasts of the field would find tongue to tell you that if some equally potentially damaging story placed Donald Trump Jr. in its crosshairs and implicated his father, it would be crowding the screens of Facebook and Twitter; the Washington Post and the New York Times would have exhausted the nation's supply of newsprint with special and interminable reports of its every minutiae; and television's main talking-heads would be choking with the zeal to report it and damnify Trump.
Should anyone want something of an honest, independent and clear view of what is happening, turn to the recent utterances of Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar, professor at George Washington University Law School, and frequent witness at U.S. Congressional proceedings about constitutional and statutory issues.
Prof. Turley is NOT a Trump supporter. He is something far more significant and singular in these partisan-insane times — a fair and intelligent mind. Here's just a few of his observations — which up until recent days would be the views of everyone with the slightest understanding of democracy and a free press:
"... The companies' actions are an outrageous example of open censorship and bias. It shows how companies effectively can become state media working for one party.
"... The point is that free speech allows us to call out those who say false or reckless things without Twitter engaging in private censorship. As soon as these companies embraced censorship, it put social media on the slippery slope of biased and selective speech controls."... Despite a letter (signed by) dozens of former officials saying this is Russian disinformation, the FBI reportedly has confirmed that it has the laptop and it is not Russian disinformation" (my emphasis).
There are others of equal standing making the same points. I'd add a few of my own. Where are the journalism schools and their mentor-professors? Why are they not howling in outrage at a canonical violation of the standards of objectivity and fair-dealing, the hallmarks of an independent press?
This is why journalism ranks as one the least respected careers.
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: cc on October 22, 2020, 11:58:34 AM
Post by: cc on October 22, 2020, 11:58:34 AM
"The corporate media—and Twitter/FB—are still crickets as Hunter Biden's biz partner confirms the emails in @nypost story are real," Chariton wrote in response to a Fox News report that Tony Bobulinski — who was listed as the recipient of an email published by the New York Post that appeared to detail a business arrangement involving a Chinese company and members of the Biden family — confirmed that the email is "genuine" and provided more information regarding the Bidens' role in the deal.
Chariton, who worked a variety of media organizations before starting Status Coup in an attempt to dissociate himself with corporate media, noted that he isn't a fan of Trump but the blackout on coverage of Hunter Biden is simply unfair.
"None of the social platforms (Twitter/FB) blocked users from posting or sharing them or locked news' outlets accounts (NY Post). Instead, they pushed them as trending topics which then led to endless hours of TV news airtime. Yet, for a story that may hurt @JoeBiden 3 weeks before the presidential election—WITH NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE that the emails the story reported on were fake—these same outlets that recklessly ran with dubious Russia/Trump stories collectively censored this story," Chariton continued. "This is dangerous for the future of journalism."
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: cc on October 22, 2020, 12:02:44 PM
Post by: cc on October 22, 2020, 12:02:44 PM
EXCLUSIVE: A list of "key domestic contacts" for a joint venture involving Jim and Hunter Biden and now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co. i
An email exclusively obtained by Fox News, with the subject line "Phase one domestic contacts/ projects" and dated May 15, 2017, Biden's brother, Jim Biden, shared a list of "key domestic contacts for phase one target projects."
The email is unrelated to the laptop or hard drive purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden, the former vice president's son.
It is unclear if any of the Democrats were ever contacted about the "target projects."
The email was sent from Jim to Hunter Biden, Tony Bobulinski, Rob Walker and James Gilliar.
Bobulinksi was an institutional investor who was recruited by the Biden family to run their joint-venture with now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co.
Bobulinski is a former Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy, and served as the CEO of SinoHawk Holdings, which he said was the partnership between the CEFC/ Chairman Ye and the Biden family.
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: cc on October 22, 2020, 12:06:42 PM
Post by: cc on October 22, 2020, 12:06:42 PM
Tony Bobulinski's Navy photo. (Courtesy: Tony Bobulinski)
Bobulinski was referring to an email, Fox News obtained last week, dated May 13, 2017, which included a discussion of "remuneration packages" for six people in a business deal with a Chinese energy firm. The email appeared to identify Biden as "Chair / Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC," in an apparent reference to now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co.
"I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden," Bobulinski said in a statement to Fox News. "The reference to "the Big Guy" in the much-publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other "JB" referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe's brother."
Bobulinski was referring to an email, Fox News obtained last week, dated May 13, 2017, which included a discussion of "remuneration packages" for six people in a business deal with a Chinese energy firm. The email appeared to identify Biden as "Chair / Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC," in an apparent reference to now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co.
"I've seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business," Bobulinski said "I've seen firsthand that that's not true, because it wasn't just Hunter's business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line."
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 01:17:46 PM
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 01:17:46 PM
Harris, prominent Democrats listed as 'key contacts' for Biden family business venture projects(//politics/jim-hunter-biden-china-joint-venture-key-contacts)
EXCLUSIVE]ncluded former Vice President Joe Biden's current running mate Sen. Kamala Harris, among other prominent Democrats, Fox News has learned.[/b]
An email exclusively obtained by Fox News, with the subject line "Phase one domestic contacts/ projects" and dated May 15, 2017, Biden's brother, Jim Biden, shared a list of "key domestic contacts for phase one target projects."
The email is unrelated to the laptop or hard drive purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden, the former vice president's son.The list, included Harris, D-Calif.; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo; New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio; former Virginia Gov. Terry McCauliffe, among others.
It is unclear if any of the Democrats were ever contacted about the "target projects."
The email was sent from Jim to Hunter Biden, Tony Bobulinski, Rob Walker and James Gilliar.
Bobulinksi was an institutional investor who was recruited by the Biden family to run their joint-venture with now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co.
Bobulinski is a former Lieutenant in the U.S. Navy, and served as the CEO of SinoHawk Holdings, which he said was the partnership between the CEFC/ Chairman Ye and the Biden family.
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: Renee on October 22, 2020, 02:25:45 PM
Post by: Renee on October 22, 2020, 02:25:45 PM
There is a few bright spots though. In new voter registration, Republicans have swamped Democrats across the board. Furthermore at least 51% of Americans say they are better off now than 4 years ago and that is with a depressed COVID economy and democrap efforts to stall growth. If that is any indication of the country's actual mood then we know for sure that polls showing Biden in the lead are a steaming pile of libertard manure.
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: cc on October 22, 2020, 02:32:51 PM
Post by: cc on October 22, 2020, 02:32:51 PM
Registrations is a very good signal
I'm hearing a lot on black and Latino support increasing significantly, but media is pretty quiet on that and on anything positive for the "bad guy" / evil villain
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: cc on October 22, 2020, 04:19:14 PM
Post by: cc on October 22, 2020, 04:19:14 PM
PICTURED: Joe Biden Smiling Alongside Kazak Businessman Who 'Hired Hunter To Help Broker US Investments When He Was VP' – Yet Still Joe Maintains He NEVER Discussed His Son's Business Dealings
A newly unearthed photo appears to show Joe Biden meeting with Kenes Rakishev, his son Hunter's alleged business partner in Kazakhstan.
The undated photograph resurfaced in the wake of a New York Post report claiming that emails found on Hunter's laptop could purportedly implicate Joe in his embattled son's international business dealings during his time as vice president.
In the image – which was published on the website of an anti-corruption group called the Kazakhstani Initiative on Asset Recovery and has not been independently verified – Joe and Hunter are seen smiling alongside Rakishev and Kazakhstan's former prime minister Karim Mossimov.
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 04:22:31 PM
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 04:22:31 PM
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: cc on October 22, 2020, 04:52:38 PM
Post by: cc on October 22, 2020, 04:52:38 PM
Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner of Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and Joe's brother Jim in the now-infamous China scheme, will be President Donald Trump's special guest at the final presidential debate on Thursday evening.
Bobulinski recently made massive waves after a bombshell statement to the New York Post "asserting that the former vice president was a willing and eager participant in a family scheme to make millions of dollars by partnering with a shady Chinese Communist firm."
The former business partner also admitted that he was one of the recipients of an email published by the post, confirming that it was authentic.
"That claim alone rips out the heart of nearly everything Joe Biden has ever said about Hunter's many businesses and Joe's knowledge of them. His repeated insistence that the two never spoke of the son's global sources of money didn't pass the laugh test," the New York Post notes. "After all, they traveled together to China on Air Force Two, where Hunter landed a $1.5 billion commitment from a government-controlled Chinese bank. Then there was Hunter's $83,000-a-month gig on the board of a Ukrainian energy company — despite his lack of experience in Ukraine or knowledge of energy."
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 11:04:08 PM
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 11:04:08 PM
BREAKING: Biden's Former Business Partner in China Scheme, Tony Bobulinski, Will Be Trump's Special Guest at Final Debate(//https) (//%3C/s%3E%3CURL%20url=%22https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/1-666-600x338.jpg%22%3E%3CLINK_TEXT%20text=%22https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-con%20...%2000x338.jpg%22%3Ehttps://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/1-666-600x338.jpg%3C/LINK_TEXT%3E%3C/URL%3E%3Ce%3E)
Tony Bobulinski, a former business partner of Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and Joe's brother Jim in the now-infamous China scheme, will be President Donald Trump's special guest at the final presidential debate on Thursday evening.
Bobulinski recently made massive waves after a bombshell statement to the New York Post "asserting that the former vice president was a willing and eager participant in a family scheme to make millions of dollars by partnering with a shady Chinese Communist firm."
The former business partner also admitted that he was one of the recipients of an email published by the post, confirming that it was authentic.
"That claim alone rips out the heart of nearly everything Joe Biden has ever said about Hunter's many businesses and Joe's knowledge of them. His repeated insistence that the two never spoke of the son's global sources of money didn't pass the laugh test," the New York Post notes. "After all, they traveled together to China on Air Force Two, where Hunter landed a $1.5 billion commitment from a government-controlled Chinese bank. Then there was Hunter's $83,000-a-month gig on the board of a Ukrainian energy company — despite his lack of experience in Ukraine or knowledge of energy."
As I posted in Rejected, I recorded the debate, but I haven't seen it yet.
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 11:49:26 PM
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 11:49:26 PM
Newly surfaced documents shed light on Hunter Biden's relationship with Elena Baturina, a Russian billionaire.
Emails released on Monday show that Biden's business partners scrambled to set up bank accounts in the U.S. for Baturina.
John Galanis, who has a history of white collar fraud convictions, also claimed in a court affidavit that his son worked with Biden and another associate, Devon Archer, to set up bank accounts to help Baturina launder money into the U.S.
A Senate report released last month said that millions of dollars in wire transfers from Baturina to accounts for Biden were flagged for possible criminal activity.
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 11:59:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 11:59:00 PM
Last week, Big Tech crossed a line. The largest corporations in the country are now brazenly colluding with the Democratic Party in a un-American attempt to rig the election and ensure that Joe Biden defeats President Trump in two weeks. Republican politicians who have previously run interference for Big Tech suddenly have no choice but to fight back. Fortunately, they have plenty of tools at their disposal to do this — even in the very near-term — because these companies are quite obviously breaking the law.
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 11:59:31 PM
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 11:59:31 PM
Let's start with the best short-term solution. Under U.S. campaign finance law, it is illegal for corporations to contribute to candidates or parties unless they form a Political Action Committee (PAC) and contribute directly from the PAC. It is also illegal for corporations to provide any sort of in-kind contribution to candidates or parties — in other words, a non-cash contribution of a good or a service. In-kind contributions are to be valued at their fair market value.
One of Facebook's well-paid lawyers might suggest that the "fair market value" for access to a free service is $0. That would be true if the service was equally accessible to all political actors and if all political content was treated equally. But by promoting some candidates, parties, and political messages, and censoring others, the platforms inadvertently create material value to their service where there may have been none previously. Campaigns that have access to a platform's bevy of users will gain a measurable advantage over campaigns that do not. Parties that are provided free, unencumbered use of a platform realize significant value when that same platform is denied to their opponents. (RELATED: 'Attempting To Undermine America': Mike Pompeo Calls Twitter's Censorship Of New York Post's Hunter Biden Hard Drive Story 'Dangerous')
Similarly, when a platform like Facebook removes negative advertisements against a particular candidate, that candidate enjoys a material financial benefit that will translate directly into votes. Last month, my organization's affiliated PAC, the American Principles Project (APP) PAC, was censored by Facebook when the company pulled one of our political ads running in Michigan. The reason? A "fact-checker" had dubiously ruled the ad was "missing context." Our organization roughly estimates the value of removing that particular ad to be worth an in-kind contribution of at least six figures to the campaigns of Biden and Democratic Michigan Senator Gary Peters. That contribution translates to a swing of several thousand votes in a battleground state. APP PAC isn't alone. A number of organizations — including the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List and the Trump campaign itself — have found themselves in the same situation in recent weeks.
So what do Republicans do about it? For starters, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) should schedule a vote for President Trump's nominee to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC currently has only three seated commissioners out of a possible six. Four are needed to establish a quorum to do business — and there's going to be a lot of business.
On Friday, the RNC announced they were filing a FEC complaint against Facebook and Twitter. Republican campaigns across the country should follow suit and file FEC complaints every time Facebook, Twitter, or any other Big Tech company censor anything election-related, whether it be a news story, a viral post, or a political ad. If there's a case to be made that the act of censorship provided a material benefit to the Democrats, report it. Meanwhile, Republican lawyers need to get even more aggressive — the FEC isn't going to act before Election Day. It's time for some creative lawsuits, given that the companies are providing so much ammunition.
Oh, and let's not forget about Google. While Facebook and Twitter seem to be tapping into their inner Leeroy Jenkins these days, Google is just as busy interfering in the election — but they're doing it in a much more sophisticated way. The Wall Street Journal has previously reported on Google's subtle manipulations of their search algorithm to control what users see and suppress certain terms and articles. In retrospect, the search engine's purge of Breitbart News earlier this year was just another canary in the coal mine. Renowned psychologist Robert Epstein estimates that Google swayed 2.6 million votes toward Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election — it's fair to assume the company will top that number in 2020.
If we somehow manage to thwart Big Tech's plan to rig the election, install Joe Biden, and destroy our republican form of government, we will need to use our political power to make sure they never have the opportunity to have such an outsize influence on the campaign process ever again. There are several ways to do this.
Enforce President Trump's Executive Order on Section 230
In May, President Trump signed an "Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship." The goal of the executive order is to significantly weaken — or at least condition — the immunity from civil liability provided to the Big Tech companies by Section 230, a law passed as part of the Communications Decency Act in the 1990s. (RELATED: Trump's Order Ignites Overdue Debate On Big Tech Protections)
There are two key provisions in Section 230. One provides companies with a protection to avoid legal responsibility for user-generated content on their platforms. The second provides them with a protection for the "good faith" removal of "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" material, "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." Courts have granted supremacy to the first provision, basically making the "good faith" provision irrelevant, an interpretation of the law which was called into question recently by Justice Clarence Thomas. In short, under this interpretation of the law, Big Tech companies can remove any content they want — "otherwise objectionable" allows for nearly any justification — and they can't be sued for it.
Trump's executive order would read into the law more importance for the second provision, thus conditioning the platforms' immunity on their acting in "good faith" — i.e. requiring that they apply their terms of service fairly, adequately explain moderation decisions, stop discriminating on the basis of viewpoint, etc.
There's still a long way to go on in terms of enforcing this executive order, but the process is moving along. Recently, as directed by the President, the U.S. Department of Commerce petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to clarify any ambiguities in Section 230. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced last week that the commission had agreed to proceed with rulemaking.
Pass a Legislative Rewrite to Section 230
A number of Republicans, perhaps most notably Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, have come up with proposals to rewrite Section 230 by conditioning the immunity provided to these companies. Earlier this year, my organization, American Principles Project, also came out with a proposal to amend the statute. If Republicans win and decide to do this next year (and they should!) they should make sure to include three important provisions:
A requirement that Big Tech platforms adhere to a "First Amendment standard" with regard to content moderation in order to continue to receive immunity;
A market dominance test to protect "Small Tech," innovators, and ordinary users from losing immunity under the law;
An enforcement mechanism, such as a private right of action, to ensure that Big Tech is actually held accountable and could face stiff penalties if they continue to discriminate on viewpoint.
Classify Social Media Platforms as Common Carriers
"Common carriers" are required under U.S. law to provide their goods or services to all who are willing to pay. They certainly can't discriminate on viewpoint the way Big Tech companies do. We regulate a number of industries as "common carriers," including utility companies, airlines, and the telecommunications industry. Why should Big Tech be any different?
As Matthew Stoller, author of Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy recently tweeted: "It's ridiculous to assert tech platforms have a free speech right to control how users engage with their platforms. These are common carriers, not speakers." (RELATED: This Is Why A Digital Startup Believes Facebook Should Be Regulated)
Break Up Big Tech
And finally, of course, there's the "nuclear" option: enforcing Antitrust law and breaking up the largest companies in American history. Earlier this week, the Department of Justice filed its highly anticipated suit against Google.
While conservatives and Republicans have been understandably reluctant to consider aggressive government action to curb activity by private companies, Big Tech's frightening power grab is an extraordinary circumstance which ought to necessitate such action. The overwhelming ability that these tech giants have to manipulate public opinion and control what enters the national discourse — and ultimately affect election results — is unprecedented. And the threat they pose to our free society is real.
If Republicans truly care about preserving America's republican form of government, they must confront head on the dangerous overreaches of Big Tech. Rhetoric, floor speeches and hearings alone will not do. Silicon Valley must be put on notice that if they attempt to abuse their power to the political benefit of a particular party or movement, they will be made to pay a price. There is simply too much at stake to avoid this fight.
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 11:59:49 PM
Post by: Anonymous on October 22, 2020, 11:59:49 PM
Let's start with the best short-term solution. Under U.S. campaign finance law, it is illegal for corporations to contribute to candidates or parties unless they form a Political Action Committee (PAC) and contribute directly from the PAC. It is also illegal for corporations to provide any sort of in-kind contribution to candidates or parties — in other words, a non-cash contribution of a good or a service. In-kind contributions are to be valued at their fair market value.
One of Facebook's well-paid lawyers might suggest that the "fair market value" for access to a free service is $0. That would be true if the service was equally accessible to all political actors and if all political content was treated equally. But by promoting some candidates, parties, and political messages, and censoring others, the platforms inadvertently create material value to their service where there may have been none previously. Campaigns that have access to a platform's bevy of users will gain a measurable advantage over campaigns that do not. Parties that are provided free, unencumbered use of a platform realize significant value when that same platform is denied to their opponents. (RELATED: 'Attempting To Undermine America': Mike Pompeo Calls Twitter's Censorship Of New York Post's Hunter Biden Hard Drive Story 'Dangerous')
Similarly, when a platform like Facebook removes negative advertisements against a particular candidate, that candidate enjoys a material financial benefit that will translate directly into votes. Last month, my organization's affiliated PAC, the American Principles Project (APP) PAC, was censored by Facebook when the company pulled one of our political ads running in Michigan. The reason? A "fact-checker" had dubiously ruled the ad was "missing context." Our organization roughly estimates the value of removing that particular ad to be worth an in-kind contribution of at least six figures to the campaigns of Biden and Democratic Michigan Senator Gary Peters. That contribution translates to a swing of several thousand votes in a battleground state. APP PAC isn't alone. A number of organizations — including the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List and the Trump campaign itself — have found themselves in the same situation in recent weeks.
So what do Republicans do about it? For starters, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) should schedule a vote for President Trump's nominee to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The FEC currently has only three seated commissioners out of a possible six. Four are needed to establish a quorum to do business — and there's going to be a lot of business.
On Friday, the RNC announced they were filing a FEC complaint against Facebook and Twitter. Republican campaigns across the country should follow suit and file FEC complaints every time Facebook, Twitter, or any other Big Tech company censor anything election-related, whether it be a news story, a viral post, or a political ad. If there's a case to be made that the act of censorship provided a material benefit to the Democrats, report it. Meanwhile, Republican lawyers need to get even more aggressive — the FEC isn't going to act before Election Day. It's time for some creative lawsuits, given that the companies are providing so much ammunition.
Oh, and let's not forget about Google. While Facebook and Twitter seem to be tapping into their inner Leeroy Jenkins these days, Google is just as busy interfering in the election — but they're doing it in a much more sophisticated way. The Wall Street Journal has previously reported on Google's subtle manipulations of their search algorithm to control what users see and suppress certain terms and articles. In retrospect, the search engine's purge of Breitbart News earlier this year was just another canary in the coal mine. Renowned psychologist Robert Epstein estimates that Google swayed 2.6 million votes toward Hillary Clinton during the 2016 election — it's fair to assume the company will top that number in 2020.
If we somehow manage to thwart Big Tech's plan to rig the election, install Joe Biden, and destroy our republican form of government, we will need to use our political power to make sure they never have the opportunity to have such an outsize influence on the campaign process ever again. There are several ways to do this.
Enforce President Trump's Executive Order on Section 230
In May, President Trump signed an "Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship." The goal of the executive order is to significantly weaken — or at least condition — the immunity from civil liability provided to the Big Tech companies by Section 230, a law passed as part of the Communications Decency Act in the 1990s. (RELATED: Trump's Order Ignites Overdue Debate On Big Tech Protections)
There are two key provisions in Section 230. One provides companies with a protection to avoid legal responsibility for user-generated content on their platforms. The second provides them with a protection for the "good faith" removal of "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable" material, "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected." Courts have granted supremacy to the first provision, basically making the "good faith" provision irrelevant, an interpretation of the law which was called into question recently by Justice Clarence Thomas. In short, under this interpretation of the law, Big Tech companies can remove any content they want — "otherwise objectionable" allows for nearly any justification — and they can't be sued for it.
Trump's executive order would read into the law more importance for the second provision, thus conditioning the platforms' immunity on their acting in "good faith" — i.e. requiring that they apply their terms of service fairly, adequately explain moderation decisions, stop discriminating on the basis of viewpoint, etc.
There's still a long way to go on in terms of enforcing this executive order, but the process is moving along. Recently, as directed by the President, the U.S. Department of Commerce petitioned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to clarify any ambiguities in Section 230. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced last week that the commission had agreed to proceed with rulemaking.
Pass a Legislative Rewrite to Section 230
A number of Republicans, perhaps most notably Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, have come up with proposals to rewrite Section 230 by conditioning the immunity provided to these companies. Earlier this year, my organization, American Principles Project, also came out with a proposal to amend the statute. If Republicans win and decide to do this next year (and they should!) they should make sure to include three important provisions:
A requirement that Big Tech platforms adhere to a "First Amendment standard" with regard to content moderation in order to continue to receive immunity;
A market dominance test to protect "Small Tech," innovators, and ordinary users from losing immunity under the law;
An enforcement mechanism, such as a private right of action, to ensure that Big Tech is actually held accountable and could face stiff penalties if they continue to discriminate on viewpoint.
Classify Social Media Platforms as Common Carriers
"Common carriers" are required under U.S. law to provide their goods or services to all who are willing to pay. They certainly can't discriminate on viewpoint the way Big Tech companies do. We regulate a number of industries as "common carriers," including utility companies, airlines, and the telecommunications industry. Why should Big Tech be any different?
As Matthew Stoller, author of Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy recently tweeted: "It's ridiculous to assert tech platforms have a free speech right to control how users engage with their platforms. These are common carriers, not speakers." (RELATED: This Is Why A Digital Startup Believes Facebook Should Be Regulated)
Break Up Big Tech
And finally, of course, there's the "nuclear" option: enforcing Antitrust law and breaking up the largest companies in American history. Earlier this week, the Department of Justice filed its highly anticipated suit against Google.
While conservatives and Republicans have been understandably reluctant to consider aggressive government action to curb activity by private companies, Big Tech's frightening power grab is an extraordinary circumstance which ought to necessitate such action. The overwhelming ability that these tech giants have to manipulate public opinion and control what enters the national discourse — and ultimately affect election results — is unprecedented. And the threat they pose to our free society is real.
If Republicans truly care about preserving America's republican form of government, they must confront head on the dangerous overreaches of Big Tech. Rhetoric, floor speeches and hearings alone will not do. Silicon Valley must be put on notice that if they attempt to abuse their power to the political benefit of a particular party or movement, they will be made to pay a price. There is simply too much at stake to avoid this fight.
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2020, 12:02:12 AM
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2020, 12:02:12 AM
Title: Re: Rex Murphy Nails It!! : Suppressing the Biden stories is a journalistic crime of historic proportions
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2020, 08:38:19 AM
Post by: Anonymous on October 23, 2020, 08:38:19 AM
A former business associate of Hunter Biden confirmed that he was one of the recipients of the email published last week by the New York Post, which details proposed payout packages and equity shares in a Biden venture with a now-defunct Chinese energy conglomerate.
Tony Bobulinski, whose name and email appear in the recipient list of the email, told The Epoch Times in an email that the deal outlined in the message concerned a partnership between Chinese energy firm CEFC and the Biden family.
The email published by the Post details "remuneration packages" for several Hunter Biden associates, including "850" for Hunter Biden and "500,000" for "Jim," a reference to James Biden, the brother of former Vice President Joe Biden.
Bobulinski said that the "big guy" in the email was a reference to Joe Biden, the current Democratic presidential nominee.
"I am the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye [Jianming] and the Biden family. I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden. The reference to 'the Big Guy' in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other 'Jim' referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe's brother."
Bobulinski said he doesn't have a "political axe to grind" and that the few political donations he made went to Democrats. A search of the Federal Election Commission database corroborates this.