Facebook Censorship

From the YouTube website:

MY FACEBOOK 30 DAY BAN = ILLEGAL CENSORSHIP!!!

THE SPECIFIC REASON FOR MY LAST 30 DAY BAN ON HATEBOOK WAS AFTER A VIDEO WAS SHOWN ABOUT MUSLIM KIDS SINGING THEY WOULD CUT OFF THE HEADS OF AMERICANS AND I TOLD MY FRIENDS THEY HAD NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT..

...I REALLY DO MEAN IT... YOU ALL HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR.. THATS NOT A KNIFE!!!
======================================
Above before i received the 30 day FB BAN, I was sending another old warning to my Fb friends about a 420 ride that was a bust.. Police were stalking the users Fb page and his daily posts to track him and arrest them in the illegal ride and pot smoke out in Nyc that is a yearly celebration.. I didn't get to send the warning which was sent to me by someone I work for in an E mail after it turned up in a news story....i was illegally censored 5-9-2019 After I was banned a few days later I received another message that something I posted later in addition to what I said about fanatical muslims with knives was also banned.. FB HOW DO YOU BAN SOMEONE WHO IS ALREADY ON A 30 DAY BAN MORONS??? again I am asking because I am special I get banned while I am banned already..
===============================
MY FACEBOOK 30 DAY BAN May 2019
IT HAPPENED TO ME AGAIN!!!! This is around my 3oth bullshit illegal censorship ban on Facebook and this time it is for 30 days..All for saying something that was deemed hateful or against Fb's new rules..Now anything you say can be deemed offensive or hateful and you can be blocked or outright banned for life from using the website..
========================================
Recently about a month ago I was banned for asking WHAT SHITHOLE PLANET DIO ALEXANDRIA OCASIO CORTEZ COME FROM??? Which if you think about it in legal terms I was not saying it I was asking it so I have extra protections..
Then a week later I was banned for saying that democrat states are evil for making 5 million each day on over 900 daily abortions.. I was sticking up for life but my comments were against Facebooks liberal agenda
===================================
Then I get banned for WARNING my close friends about threats coming from muslim children who sang about cutting American heads off!! There again I get extra legal protections under the whistleblower act.. if I am warning people close to me, I just don't have 1st amendment protections, i also have whistleblower protection.. That all gets taken away when you get banned on Fb you can't send messages, you can't even like anything, post anything, no posting notes, you cant post video or even change your profile picture to tell everyone you are in Fb jail.. Nothing.. You can't even use Fb messenger when on a 30 day ban.. Total illegal censorship and I NEVER AGREED TO THAT OR TO BE TREATED THAT WAY
============================
I am in talks with a 1st Amendment lawyer and may pursue a class action billion dollar lawsuit if something isn't done to correct this LIBERAL AGENDA. on Facebook.. it went from Facebook to Fakebook to Hatebook.. They want to silence anyone who does not go along with heir evil Democrat agenda.. Those examples right there could be deemed hate speech but it is all true, and these 4 videos right here back up every word I am saying
============================
Most people would just walk away and not use the site anymore, but I am not like most people and refuse to back down from a fight especially a biased one against me and what I am saying.. I publish notes on all hot topics, a citizen journalist of sorts, exposing the truth from an unbiased view and nobody likes that..i have also published videos and posted informative articles.. I do that all the time to help, to solve problems in the world and make it a better place.. The Democrat Liberal agenda is evil and does not want any part of that, so they will try to silence me.. There is only one way to do that , just make sure the safety catches are in the off position when you come calling evil ones.. That is your only chance
==================
Good will defeat evil as it is written, so it is written so it shall be done!!!

Also:

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights
This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

Source

Youtube and other tech companies want to censor you

From Senator Rand Paul and Randpac:

Dear Patriot, I hope you’ll stand up and fight alongside me right now.

I’m going to need all the help I can get.

I’m up against not just the deep state in our government, but the tech world as well

I need you to help me fight back today.

It is a chilling and disturbing day in America when giant web companies such as YouTube decide to censure speech.

Now, even protected speech, such as that of a senator on the Senate floor, can be blocked from getting to the American people.

That’s not right.

It is dangerous and politically biased.

And if they can do it to me they Can do it to anyone.

Time to stand up and be counted.

Their arbitrary censorship is beyond the pale.

Nowhere in my speech did I accuse anyone of being a whistle blower, nor do I know the whistle blower's identity.

Apparently, YouTube has taken it upon itself to decide what questions can even be asked in the public debate, including on the

Senate floor.

Let’s show them the great silent majority of liberty lovers will be silent no more!

I need you to help RandPac spread the word here. RandPac needs to rally MILLIONS of Americans to this fight

So please be among the first to stand with me.

And please help RandPac spread the word through your Financial support as well.

SIGN PETITION HERE

Tell Congress to Vote against TPP

From Fight For The Future

We already know the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is not about trade, it’s about corruption and corporate control. And now we know more about its economic impact.

The TPP could be even more devastating than we thought. Tell Congress to vote no on this secret deal that opens the floodgates for Internet censorship!

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), an obscure Federal agency that enthusiastically rubber-stamps destructive trade deals like NAFTA [1], just released its report projecting the economic effects of the TPP in the US. These bureaucrats almost always gives trade deals a 5 star review, but even they are not convinced by the TPP.

That shows just how bad the TPP really is. Even the government admits it. But corporations are pouring millions into lobbying. if we don’t speak out Congress will pass it anyway.

Email Congress to vote NO on TPP

So what did the USITC say about TPP?

The study indicates that in the TPP’s first fifteen years:
•The United States’ global trade deficit would actually increase by $21.7 billion;
•That there would be a decline in output for U.S. manufacturing, natural resources and energy of $10.8 billion [2]

TPP supporters have already started spinning pieces of this report to their advantage. Let’s make sure Congress isn’t fooled.

Through digital and intellectual property policies, the TPP would globalize the worst of US copyright law, limit freedom of expression, threaten internet security and privacy, and adopt harsh criminal sanctions that could be used against journalists and whistleblowers. [3]

Tell Congress: Bad for the internet, bad for the economy. Vote NO on TPP.

[1] Source

[2] Citizens Trade Campaign (no link included)

[3] Source

Want to support our work? Fight for the Future is powered by people like you who care about keeping the Internet open and free.

Tell Senator Wyden not to cave on TPP

Dear Fight for the Future member,

Urgent action needed to stop the Trans-Pacific Partnership censorship deal!

It’s Saturday. I wish I wasn’t working today, but something urgent has come up and we need to ask you to take action. TODAY.

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has long been a champion of Internet freedom causes, but now he’s saying he wants to negotiate with Republicans to make sure that Fast Track legislation passes, which would then hastily ram through the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, a massive trade deal that we know contains extreme provisions that could lead to widespread Internet censorship.

Senator Wyden needs to hear from you right now. Click here to tell him to be a hero to the Internet, not a traitor!

The Senator is hosting a town hall meeting tonight, and he’ll most certainly be talking about trade issues and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We need to make sure he feels the heat all day today. Let’s remind him who’s side he’s on: the Internet’s!

Thanks, have a great weekend,
-Evan from Fight for the Future

P.S. Senator Wyden is especially sensitive to what he sees on Twitter. Will you retweet this tweet? That would be a big help. Thanks!

The Democrats are the enemy of the American people

Sen. Cruz Op-ed: The Democratic Assault on the First Amendment
June 1, 2014 | Sen. Ted Cruz
From The Wall Street Journal:

For two centuries there has been bipartisan agreement that American democracy depends on free speech. Alas, more and more, the modern Democratic Party has abandoned that commitment and has instead been trying to regulate the speech of the citizenry.

We have seen President Obama publicly rebuke the Supreme Court for protecting free speech in Citizens United v. FEC; the Obama IRS inquire of citizens what books they are reading and what is the content of their prayers; the Federal Communications Commission proposing to put government monitors in newsrooms; and Sen. Harry Reid regularly slandering private citizens on the Senate floor for their political speech.

But just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it does. Senate Democrats have promised a vote this year on a constitutional amendment to expressly repeal the free-speech protections of the First Amendment.

You read that correctly. Forty-one Democrats have signed on to co-sponsor New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall's proposed amendment to give Congress plenary power to regulate political speech. The text of the amendment says that Congress could regulate "the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections." The amendment places no limitations whatsoever on Congress's new power.

Two canards are put forth to justify this broad authority. First, "money is not speech." And second, "corporations have no free speech rights."

Neither contention bears even minimal scrutiny. Speech is more than just standing on a soap box yelling on a street corner. For centuries the Supreme Court has rightly concluded that free speech includes writing and distributing pamphlets, putting up billboards, displaying yard signs, launching a website, and running radio and television ads. Every one of those activities requires money. Distributing the Federalist Papers or Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" required money. If you can prohibit spending money, you can prohibit virtually any form of effective speech.

As for the idea that the Supreme Court got it wrong in Citizens United because corporations have no First Amendment rights, that too is demonstrably false. The New York Times is a corporation. The television network NBC is a corporation. Book publisher Simon & Schuster is a corporation. Paramount Pictures is a corporation. Nobody would reasonably argue that Congress could restrict what they say—or what money they spend distributing their views, books or movies—merely because they are not individual persons.

Proponents of the amendment also say it would just "repeal Citizens United" or "regulate big money in politics." That is nonsense. Nothing in the amendment is limited to corporations, or to nefarious billionaires. It gives Congress power to regulate—and ban—speech by everybody.

Indeed, the text of the amendment obliquely acknowledges that Americans' free-speech rights would be eliminated: It says "[n]othing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press." Thus, The New York Times is protected from congressional power; individual citizens, exercising political speech, are not.

If this amendment were adopted, the following would likely be deemed constitutional:

Congress could prohibit the National Rifle Association from distributing voter guides letting citizens know politicians' records on the Second Amendment.

Congress could prohibit the Sierra Club from running political ads criticizing politicians for their environmental policies.

Congress could penalize pro-life (or pro-choice) groups for spending money to urge their views of abortion.

Congress could prohibit labor unions from organizing workers (an in-kind expenditure) to go door to door urging voters to turn out.

Congress could criminalize pastors making efforts to get their parishioners to vote.

Congress could punish bloggers expending any resources to criticize the president.

Congress could ban books, movies (watch out Michael Moore) and radio programs—anything not deemed "the press"—that might influence upcoming elections.

One might argue, "surely bloggers would be protected." But Senate Democrats expressly excluded bloggers from protection under their proposed media-shield law, because bloggers are not "covered journalists."

One might argue, "surely movies would be exempt." But the Citizens United case—expressly maligned by President Obama during his 2010 State of the Union address—concerned the federal government trying to fine a filmmaker for distributing a movie criticizing Hillary Clinton.

One might argue, "surely books would be exempt." But the Obama administration, in the Citizens United oral argument, explicitly argued that the federal government could ban books that contained political speech.

The contemplated amendment is simply wrong. No politician should be immune from criticism. Congress has too much power already—it should never have the power to silence citizens.

Thankfully, any constitutional amendment must first win two-thirds of the vote in both houses of Congress. Then three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve the proposed amendment. There's no chance that Sen. Udall's amendment will clear either hurdle. Still, it's a reflection of today's Democratic disrespect for free speech that an attempt would even be made. There was a time, not too long ago, when free speech was a bipartisan commitment.

John Stuart Mill had it right: If you disagree with political speech, the best cure is more speech, not less. The First Amendment has served America well for 223 years. When Democrats tried something similar in 1997, Sen. Ted Kennedy was right to say: "In the entire history of the Constitution, we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is no time to start."

Source

Obama wants to silence his critics

From Radio America:

Barack Obama and his gang of radical liberals have launched an unprecedented campaign targeting conservative talk radio. Their goal? To shut down the public debate by silencing our most effective conservative spokespeople.

The left knows they can't compete with conservative arguments about the economy and foreign policy – the two most pressing issues facing America today. That's why they are trying to cut the mic's of our most effective spokespeople – including Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Roger Hedgecock, Peter Schiff, and myself – and effectively tape our mouths shut. We can't let this happen ... so we're fighting back.

For over 25 years, Radio America has championed the ideas of limited government, individual liberty, free market economics, and traditional American values through compelling news, talk, and documentary programs. Our programs are heard by millions of Americans, through syndication to over 400 radio stations and distributed to websites such as World Net Daily and National Review Online.

But the radical left's war on conservative talk radio has put all this in jeopardy ... and that's why I'm writing you today.

Will you join me in supporting Radio America with a generous, tax-deductible contribution of $25, $50, $100, or more today? There is no limit to what you can give – every dollar you contribute can be written off for tax purposes – and it will make a huge difference.

I'm getting nervous.

You see, Obama needed only 3 liberal votes from the 5 member Federal Communications Commission to shut down conservative talk radio ... and he just got his votes. So this may truly be our final chance to save conservative talk radio.

To say time is of the essence is the understatement.

That's why I need you to follow this link to make a tax-deductible contribution of $25, $50, $100, or more to Radio America today.

With your support, you will not only help us save conservative radio today, but will also help us prepare for the future. We established the Comprehensive Journalism Internship program train and educate young journalists.

Too often, political reporters lack the background needed to accurately report both sides of political and economic stories. The Radio America program provides students with hands-on training– allowing them to get beneath the surface of events to probe and analyze the underlying causes of these and other political and economic problems. Students also have the opportunity to contribute to Radio America's Online News Bureau as reporters and writers, while also serving as associate producers for all broadcast radio operations on the network.

Click here to make a tax-deductible contribution of $25, $50, $100, or more today and help us provide the next generation of journalists the training they need to produce fair and accurate news reporting.

This is a war, and if the radicals win and succeed in shutting down talk radio in 2013, conservatives will be severely wounded. Truth will be silenced, and we will continue losing in the political arena. I'm counting on you to not let that happen.

Sincerely,

Laura Ingraham
Conservative Radio Host

P.S. Don't let the radical left force our great conservative commentators off the air. Join the fight and stand with Radio America! Follow this link to make a tax-deductible contribution of $25, $50, $100, or more today. Remember: there is no limit to what you can give today, and every dollar you contribute can be written off for tax purposes. Thanks — Laura

To Donate

The Senate wants to give the Department of Justice the authority to decide who gets First Amendment protection

Senate Amendment Would Give DOJ Power to Determine Who Is a 'Journalist'

by Ben Shapiro 13 Sep 2013 1017

An amendment is moving through the Senate Judiciary Committee that would essentially allow the government to determine who is a journalist for purposes of legal protection of sources. For purposes of protecting a source, a “journalist” under law would be anyone who:

•Works or worked for “an entity or service that disseminates news or information by means of newspaper; nonfiction book; wire service; news agency; news website, mobile application or other news or information service…news program; magazine or other periodical…or through television or radio broadcast…” These people would have to have the “primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information.” Opinion journalists might not be covered.

•Bloggers and citizen journalists – citizens who commit acts of journalists without working for such an outlet – would not be covered, unless it was determined that “at the inception of the process of gathering the news or information sought, had the primary intent to investigate issues or events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information.” In other words, the government – the Department of Justice – would now determine whether primary intent was news distribution or political concerns.

•Those explicitly excluded from protection include those “whose principal function, as demonstrated by the totality of such person or entity’s work, is to publish primary source documents that have been disclosed to such person or entity without authorization.” Glenn Greenwald, please contact your lawyer.

Who would decide who fell within these guidelines? A “judge of the United States” can “exercise discretion to avail the persons of the protections of this Act.” But in the first instance, the DOJ would have the discretion to determine whether a person is a “journalist” for purposes of the law. Instead of focusing on acts of journalism, the law would identify people by employment status.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said that it should not matter to citizen journalists if new protections extended to a special class of journalists created by the government, since the First Amendment does not grant any right to protect sources in the first place. “When we’re discussing the issue of adding a privilege, the issue of taking away someone’s First Amendment rights just isn’t engaged….All we’re doing is adding privilege to existing First Amendment rights, so there is, logically, zero First Amendment threat out of this,” said Whitehouse, ignoring the fact that a massive institutional advantage would be handed to approved government outlets, thereby perverting the entire system of a free press.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) launched into the proposed bill, which he said could “have the effect of excluding certain persons from enjoying the added First Amendment protections the bill would provide.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) agreed, stating, “Essentially as I understand this amendment, it protects what I would characterize as the ‘corporate media.’…But it leaves out citizen bloggers….I don’t think any protection should treat citizen bloggers who are meeting the underlying test of being primarily engaged in gathering news to report it I don’t think they should be excluded because they don’t happen to work for a media corporation.” He continued:

It strikes me that we are on dangerous territory if we are drawing distinctions that are treating some engaged in the process of reporting and journalism better than others. If we are advantaging those who happen to receive a paycheck from a corporate media entity over those who happen to be citizens….I for one would have deep troubles with legislation from Congress saying ‘we will grant special privileges if you happen to work for a corporate media interest’….It seems to me the First Amendment protects the activity, not the employment status of the person engaging in it.

Source:click here

This is very important. It means that those who are politically correct will be protected while those of us who believe in civil liberties won't be. Look for assclowns like Dave Futrelle and Hugo Schwyzer being given "journalist" protections while those of us in the manosphere will receive no protections. Do you want some judge to decide? We've all seen how the corrupt the judiary is. It has been documented on the Men's Rights Blog so we know it exists. One liberal judge could destroy everyones' rights. Not only that do you want Eric Holder to decide for you? Remember this is the same Eric Holder who covered up black on white hate crimes:here and here. The is the same Eric Holder who perjured himself in the House concerning fast and furious. Do you want to give more power to Eric Holder? I sure don't.

As far as the bill's supporters perhaps we should email them and let them know we are not fond of this bill and to leave the Constitution alone,this bill is an infringement upon the First Amendment:

Senator Dianne Feinstein contact form

Senator Dick Durbin contact form

Senator Chuck Schumer contact form

Then there are the good guys. We should thank them for standing up for not only the First Amendment but the Constitution itself:

Senator Mike Lee contact form

Senator Ted Cruz contact form

Let's let both sides know how we feel. That we value the Constitution.