Saturday, he stepped up his political philanthropy in a big way and will continue to do so until election days. According to The Post Millennial:
Elon Musk handed out a check worth $1 million dollars to a random voter who signed his “free speech and right to bear arms” petition in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Musk made the promise to do it every day until election day.
As the tech entrepreneur handed the man the check, the voter said, “Thanks, Elon. This is really great.”
Musk said that one of the issues was getting people to know about the petition and that the $1 million payment would be certain to get the legacy media’s attention. “The only thing we ask for the million dollars is that you be spokesperson for the petition and that’s it,” Musk said when he handed the man the check.
Watch the exchange:
Wow. @elonmusk just gave away a MILLION dollars to someone who signed his free speech petition. He vows to do this every day until Election Day. pic.twitter.com/7DaPg3MXhQ
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) October 20, 2024
Will corporate media cover it? Of course not. But the word will get out because conservative and alternative media will cover it. As independent journalism continues to fill the void of truth that partisan corporate media is abandoning, people like Musk and Trump are benefitting… as is America.
]]>An exaggeration, you say?
Just listen to what high-profile leftists have been openly saying about denying you your right to information on both sides of the political equation.
Former presidential candidate and Obama Secretary of State John Kerry has gotten the most attention recently, mainly because of how bluntly he railed against our most fundamental freedom. But former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has been just as repressive—and more detailed. And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has been her usual self as she demands censorship without much specificity.
Kerry made his comments at a World Economic Forum panel on green energy on Sept. 25. A conservative comedian trying to satirize the views of the haughty ruling class could not have come up with better material.
As Kerry put it, “The dislike of and anger over social media is just growing and growing and growing, and it’s part of our problem, particularly in democracies, in terms of building consensus around any issue,” Kerry lamented, apparently referring to abhorrence of freedom by members of his ilk.
“It’s really hard to govern today!” The problem, he said, was that the internet and social media have liberated people to choose from different sources of information, adding competition. Little over two decades ago, the country was held hostage to the views of the journalists working at three networks and a handful of national newspapers.
Kerry pines for those days. “The referees we used to have to determine what’s a fact, and what isn’t a fact, have been eviscerated to a certain degree, and people self-select, where they go for their news, or for their information, and you get into a vicious cycle,” said the man who came within 19 Electoral College votes of becoming president in 2004. “So, it’s really, really hard, much harder, to build consensus today than at any time in the 40 to 50 years I’ve been involved in this.”
He continued, “There is a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities, if people go to only one source, and the source they go to is sick and has an agenda and it’s putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to hammer it out of existence.”
Kerry’s solution?
What we need is to win the ground, win the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change. … Democracies are very challenged right now, and have not proven that they can move fast enough, or big enough, to deal with the challenges that we are facing, and to me, this is part of what this race, this election is all about—will we break the fever in the United States?
Reich also discussed his desire to hammer persnickety sources of information out of existence with a global audience. Writing in the leading newspaper of the British Left, The Guardian, he engaged in a bit of disinformation himself by mischaracterizing the actions of the man he’d like hammered out, X owner Elon Musk.
Musk and former President Donald Trump “have both floated the idea of governing together if Trump wins a second term,” wrote Reich, whereas, in fact, as Reich admitted himself, all Musk has done is recommend that Trump have in a second term a “government efficiency commission” in which Musk “would be happy to help out.” But apparently unaware that he was committing the same crime he accused Musk to be guilty of, Reich went on with his recommendation for how officials around the world should “rein in Musk.”
The first one was for people to boycott Musk’s electric vehicle, Tesla, and his social media company, X. But Reich wants much more. “Regulators around the world should threaten Musk with arrest if he doesn’t stop disseminating lies and hate on X,” he wrote. As for the U.S. government, it “should terminate its contracts with him, starting with Musk’s SpaceX,” wrote Reich, who published his screed weeks before the U.S. government had to come to SpaceX, hat in hand, asking it to retrieve two astronauts stranded by NASA.
Ocasio-Cortez has been far less trenchant and specific. The young representative, who’s been repeatedly dinged by left-leaning PolitiFact for spreading falsehoods, also wants to “rein in” media she considers guilty of spreading misinformation.
“We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so that you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation,” she posted on social media. “It’s one thing to have different opinions, but it’s another thing entirely to just say things that are false, so that is something that we’re looking into.”
Unfortunately, these unhinged comments by American politicians don’t come in a vacuum.
There is a sustained attack on freedom of information from Brazil to our ally the United Kingdom to next door in Canada. Of course, that makes it all the more important that we speak up for freedom.
Image via Flickr, CC BY-ND 2.0.
]]>All three universities, located in New York and Massachusetts respectively, received “abysmal” rankings for their free speech climates in the annual report, released on Thursday by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Harvard University retained its position as the lowest-ranked institution for free speech for the second consecutive year, the report noted.
“Some of the nation’s most lauded higher ed institutions are failing miserably in upholding First Amendment protections,” Sean Stevens, FIRE’s chief researcher, said in a statement. “Often these schools set the tone for the wider higher ed ecosystem, so it is imperative that they address these issues lest this failure drag the rights of a whole new generation of college students down with it.”
The report ranked the free speech climates of more than 250 American colleges and universities based on a survey of over 58,000 students nationwide. Most of the colleges and universities were ranked “average,” while only three received a “good” grade. The University of Virginia, Michigan Technological University and Florida State University had the healthiest speech climates in 2024, according to the report.
At least six colleges, including Liberty University in Virginia and Baylor University in Texas, were listed as “warning” schools with “policies that clearly and consistently state that it prioritizes other values over a commitment to freedom of speech.”
Other regional universities included in the FIRE report were Dartmouth College in New Hampshire — which ranked 224th and earned a “below average” grade — and the University of Vermont, which placed 233rd and received a “below average” rating. Rutgers University, New Jersey’s elite public school, also received a “below average” ranking, placing 198th in the list.
The report also delved into whether students felt they needed to self-censor themselves in response to the political climate on campuses. Students who self-described as “very conservative” reported self-censoring most often, with 34% saying they do so “very” or “fairly” often, according to the report. In contrast, only 15% of “very liberal” students reported self-censoring “very” or “fairly” often, according to FIRE’s pollsters.
FIRE also surveyed students’ views on the Israel-Hamas War, which has been the source of often violent demonstrations and occupations on many elite college campuses over the past year.
The foundation surveyed about 3,000 students for their views on encampments and protests on their campuses over the past year. Nearly three-quarters of students said it is “rarely acceptable,” while about 60% said it was “rarely acceptable” to occupy university buildings as part of demonstrations.
More than a quarter of Jewish students surveyed by the group said they feel “very” or “somewhat unsafe” on their college campuses, while nearly half of Muslim students said police responses to encampments made them feel unsafe.
“The Middle East crisis plunged campuses into absolute chaos last academic year and administrators largely failed in their response, clamping down on free speech protections instead of fostering spaces for open dialogue,” Lukianoff said. “The nightmare scenarios of last spring cannot be repeated this fall. Colleges need to reassert their mantle of being marketplaces of ideas, not bubbles of groupthink and censorship.”
]]>Hong Kong-based political analyst Angel Giuliano claims that Western allies are striving to assume total control over the media narrative by going after platforms like Telegram that facilitate the exchange of information minus the government intrusion.
There have also been a lot of other attacks on free speech as of late, including the recent FBI raid on the home of Scott Ritter, a former United States Marine Corps intelligence officer. Or how about the death of Chilean-American journalist Gonzalo Lira while in Ukraine’s custody?
Independent journalist Richard Medhurst was also nabbed by British police earlier this month at London’s Heathrow Airport for criticizing the United States, Great Britain and Israel for committing genocide in the Gaza Strip. Medhurst was arrested under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act (2000).
“There is actually an oppression of journalists and freedom of speech in the West and especially in the EU,” Giuliano told Sputnik, a Russia-based media outlet.
(Related: Much like the United States, Ukraine claims to be a bastion of freedom and democracy even as the Zelensky regime persecutes Christians by banning the Orthodox Church.)
Free speech has become very “inconvenient” for the West
Concerning Durov, Western powers claim the Telegram founder did not do enough to stop allegedly criminal activities from being organized and discussed through the platform. If convicted, Durov faces up to 20 years in prison.
Durov expressed concerns to Tucker Carlson a few months back about the U.S. government’s mistreatment, indicating that he has been a target of Western intelligence services for a while.
U.S. cybersecurity officials wanted Durov to create special backdoor access for them to probe users’ private conversations. When Durov refused, warning that such a backdoor would enable more government abuses, Western intelligence put him in their crosshairs for elimination.
“I wouldn’t be surprised that they would try to get their hands on Telegram, to strike a deal with Telegram, saying ‘well, we release you; you give us a price and maybe we can buy you,'” Giuliano said, arguing that Durov’s arrest is likely serving as some kind of “bargaining chip.”
“What they say clearly at the EU is that they need to control the narrative because that’s everything,” he added, noting that freedom of speech and the First Amendment has become very “inconvenient” for Western governments. “The narrative you control controls the mind of the people.”
What makes Durov’s arrest curious is the fact that he became a French citizen just three years ago, the suggestion being that he is in good standing with the French government. In 2023, French media celebrated the fact that Paris had chosen “an exceptional and highly political procedure” in order to grant Durov citizenship.
Then, all of a sudden and seemingly out of nowhere, French authorities turned on Durov by capturing him at the airport.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk faces similar treatment now that he owns X (formerly Twitter) and has rebranded it as a social media platform that values free speech. Musk could one day find himself in handcuffs if he travels to the wrong place at the wrong time.
“Keep in mind that Elon Musk hasn’t actually complied with EU regulation. And in reality, he would be de facto also another target,” Giuliano said. Arresting Durov, he added, is “really a red flag overall for journalists and for whoever is actually spilling the truth, inconvenient truth.
In the comments, many people expressed concern that other platforms similar to Telegram might be next. Free speech is under attack. Learn more at Censorship.news.
Sources for this article include:
]]>Guterres presented the game-plan with a sense of urgency, commanding governments, technology companies, the media and advertisers to take control and establish official narratives, while quashing opposition voices. The UN supports Big Tech’s algorithmic control over the information stream online and seeks to control online speech further. A global body of elites seek to delete what they believe is the disinformation, and they seek to discredit and demonetize the voices of dissent. All the censorship coming from global power systems is war on free speech, but it’s also a war on truth, so that these power systems cannot be held to account for their abuses.
UN’s information surveillance and control system seeks to centralize censorship for global domination
The UN is erecting an information surveillance and control system that crafts authoritarian narratives that limit access to life saving knowledge. These control systems not only censor, but they train people what to say, how to behave, and what to think. The UN wants to create a world of simps who surrender their sovereignty and bow down to manipulative and abusive entities and false authorities.
These algorithms or automated review processes will be programmed to filter and remove content deemed objectionable or politically sensitive. This can include blocking websites, social media posts, or entire platforms that criticize the government, promote dissent, or discuss sensitive topics like human rights abuses or political opposition.
In times of political unrest or during manufactured crises, governments may impose internet shutdowns or restrict access to specific websites or social media platforms. This tactic effectively silences dissenting voices, prevents the spread of information about protests or the abuses of governments, and limits the ability of citizens to communicate and organize. Examples of this tyranny were observed on the Facebook social media platform, when Meta targeted and shut down community groups that discussed COVID-19 vaccine injury. Any opposition to vaccine mandates were derided as “misinformation” and any groups that organized for medical freedom were algorithmically shut down or their reach was severely restricted.
Furthermore, surveillance technologies can be used to monitor online activities in real time, tracking individuals’ digital footprints, and identify dissenting voices or activists. This surveillance creates a chilling effect, deterring individuals from expressing controversial opinions or participating in political discourse online.
By manipulating search results, governments and pharmaceutical companies can influence search engine algorithms to prioritize or bury certain information about cures for infectious disease, heart disease, cancer, and other chronic illnesses. By controlling what information surfaces at the top of search results, pharmaceutical companies can shape public perception, suppress alternative viewpoints, or promote propaganda and official narratives to keep people sick and coming back for more drugs and vaccines that don’t work.
UN will abuse their power to command narratives and skirt accountability for totalitarian actions
Governments may enact laws and regulations that impose restrictions on digital content, such as requiring platforms to remove “harmful” or “offensive” content. These laws can be vague and broadly interpreted, allowing authorities to target journalists, activists or ordinary citizens who express dissenting views. This was seen in the U.S. under the Biden regime’s targeting of the so-called “disinformation dozen” who were removed from and demonetized across social media platforms. The Biden regime also crafted a “do not promote list” for books that discussed the topic of vaccination. The federal government coerced one of the biggest book distributors – Amazon – to restrict access to these books.
Authorities may selectively target journalists, human rights defenders, activists or members of marginalized communities with harassment, intimidation or legal threats. This creates a climate of fear and self-censorship, where individuals refrain from expressing dissenting opinions or advocating for social change. The UN can throttle internet speeds or block communication channels such as messaging apps or VoIP services during periods of unrest and uncertainty. This restricts the ability of individuals to communicate securely, share information or coordinate protests or activism.
Like its predecessors, these UN-backed information control systems will be implemented without transparency or accountability, and there will be no due process for their targets. This lack of oversight allows those in power to manipulate information flows without public scrutiny, exacerbating the impact of censorship on democratic processes and civil liberties.
With this move, the UN and its military alliances are practically declaring war on the press, on research analysts and independent journalism.
Sources include:
]]>
(DCNF)—When James Madison was a member of Congress in 1791 and charged with drafting the Bill of Rights, he made two grammatical demands. One was that the word “the” precede “freedom of speech” in the First Amendment, and the other was a command in the Ninth Amendment that the “rights retained by the people,” rights too numerous to enumerate, “shall not be disparaged” by the government.
This principle–that our rights preexisted the government–would be played out over and over in litigation in the centuries following the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
The ratification itself was insisted upon by five of the new states who threatened to leave the new union unless restraints were added to the Constitution so as to protect the individual liberties that the Declaration of Independence–then only 15 years old–stated unambiguously were granted by the Creator.
Though the colonists deeply valued all the rights articulated in the Declaration, truly it was the freedom of speech that drove the revolution. Yes, the Americans had Kentucky long guns that enabled the colonial militias to shoot and kill British forces from distances that the British weaponry was unable to reach. Yes, the Americans were animated by defending their homeland.
But it was speech–sung in taverns, written in broadsides, delivered in sermons, distributed in pamphlets, adopted by the Continental Congress and colonial legislatures, and proclaimed in town squares from Boston to Charleston–that whipped the brushfires of freedom into a revolution and a new nation.
I offer this brief historical, philosophical and legal analysis of the freedom of speech as background for the discussion that follows.
Today, this most basic and utterly essential freedom–both a natural human right and a constitutionally protected right–is under assault by governments that hate or fear the content of the speech. I am addressing the demonstrations on college campuses today and the authoritarian responses to them by college presidents, governors and mayors.
Here is the dispute in a nutshell.
Students at various universities are repulsed by the gravity of the assault on Gaza by the IDF. They have chosen to address this assault and not the assault on Israeli civilians and military on Oct. 7. They are free to address whichever assault they choose.
They have also chosen to articulate their views by occupying public places on campuses; shouting, singing and haranguing college administrators. The administrators, fearing a loss of donations from those who disagree with the students or harm to other students who challenge the demonstrators, have engaged local and state police to suppress these demonstrations.
Can the government interfere with speech because of its content? In a word: No.
How about on private property where campuses are not owned by the government? That depends on the location of the campus, as most states–but not all–have public accommodation laws that make college campuses public places available for the articulation of ideas. Even the colleges in states without these laws that accept federal funds do so in contracts with the federal government, which require that they respect free-speech rights.
These public accommodation laws and these agreements with the feds are violative of the property rights of the owners of these colleges. Yet, like free speech, property rights, too, are under attack in America today.
Nevertheless, today it is clear beyond dispute that college campuses are places for the free exchange of ideas, whether these ideas are approved by the owners of the campuses or not.
Is speech that preaches hate and threatens violence protected on college campuses? In a word: Yes.
In Terminiello v. Chicago (1949), a Roman Catholic priest aimed hatred at President Harry Truman and the hate speech produced violence and property damage. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), a Ku Klux Klan leader aimed hatred at Blacks and Jews. In Terminiello, the violence was caused by the audience members who hated the speech they came to scorn. In Brandenburg, the KKK speaker demanded violence, but it never came about.
The Supreme Court sided with both speakers. The jurisprudence from both cases is now integral to American law. It teaches that all innocuous speech is absolutely protected and all speech is innocuous when there is time for more speech to challenge it.
Moreover, the court ruled, freedom of speech is so essential to human happiness and democratic values that it tolerates violence; meaning, those who cause violence can and should be addressed by the criminal justice system, but those who preach it are immune from prosecution, unless they cause an immediate, unthinking violent act–meaning there is no time for more speech to challenge the call for violence.
In the case of college campuses, the violence has been caused by the government. Whether the property on which the demonstrators stand is owned by the government–like the University of Texas, where the governor sent in police on horseback to rough up peaceful demonstrators–or is privately owned like Columbia University, where the mayor sent in police to arrest peaceful students, is of no moment.
No moment because the students have an absolute right to think as they wish, to say what they think, to read what they want, to publish what they believe; and they can do this alone or in groups, quietly or profoundly–and they can do this with impunity. Anything short of leaving them alone involves the governmental evaluation of the content of speech, the very acts that the First Amendment was written to prevent.
Today, the government wants war, and the students want peace. In the bitter days of the 1960s, student demonstrators chased an incumbent president from reelection and chastised a newly elected one into a policy change over war. Today, the government seems determined to use force to prevent change and suppress freedom. If the British had done this successfully in the 1770s, we’d all be bowing to Charles III today.
To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
COPYRIGHT 2024 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
]]>I recently wrangled on this topic with former top-ranked New York City radio host Brian Wilson, with whom I do a weekly podcast. In one of his Substack essays on the topic, Brian stated that “anyone claiming the title ‘Journalist’ must come with the degreed qualifications”—possessing a journalism degree. He added, “I take principled offense at those who appropriate a title they never earned” by not possessing a journalism degree. Commenting on a recent dispute over the firing of former Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Brian mentioned that some of the individuals that NBC identified as “journalists” had not graduated from college. Brian declared, “Wouldn’t you expect a professional ‘journalist’ to have bona fide credentials on a par with other professions”—such as doctors and lawyers —”to qualify for their titles”?
Brian stated that a journalism degree “should be obviously important to anyone looking for Integrity and Accuracy in the news.” But ethics is a shaky defense for “degreed Journalists.” In the past thirty years, the percentage of people working for print and broadcast media outlets who have journalism degrees has skyrocketed. At the same time, public trust in the media collapsed.
Brian stated that in all the years that he knew me and followed my work, he had never heard of anyone refer to me as a “journalist.” Actually, that is probably the most common non-profane term folks use to describe me.
But I am a mere Hokie dropout, since I didn’t finish a four-year sojourn at Virginia Tech. I never took any journalism classes. On the other hand, I zealously pursued classes and independent studies with professors to become a better writer. Once I took all those classes, I dropped out because having a degree from Va. Tech wouldn’t open the type of markets I planned to target. Early on, I found some editors that judged me by the words I submitted, not by any academic pedigree.
Maybe my career illustrates the shifting definitions and standards for journalism. After I moved to Washington in mid-1980, I applied to be a writer or researcher at the Heritage Foundation. At that point, Heritage did not have a grandiose law firm-style headquarters on Capitol Hill a stone’s throw from Senate office buildings. Instead, it was located in a ramshackle old wooden building on the dicey borderline of the safe part of Capitol Hill.
I was interviewed by a trim, mid-30ish guy who was immaculately coiffed and, despite the brutally hot Washington summer day, wearing a formal vest from a three-piece suit. His vibe that day left no doubt that he was conferring a celestial blessing by meeting with me.
He beamed as he sat in a swivel chair on the other side of a broad table. After the standard pleasantries, he looked down his nose and picked up the resume and stack of clips I had sent the previous week.
“Hmmm…“ he said almost absent-mindedly, as if talking to himself. “You’ve been published in New York Times…Chicago Tribune…Boston Globe…Washinton Star…Nice.”
When his skimming reached the bottom of the page, his face brightened with a triumphal gloat. “Oh!” he happily announced. A pregnant pause was followed by judicious raising of eyebrows to signify astonishment, if not shock and horror.
“I see that you didn’t finish college.”
“Yep,” I replied.
He tilted back in his chair, crossed his arms, and, with a condescending smirk, solemnly announced: “Mr. Bovard, you’ve got to pay your dues.”
I struggled mightily to repress a Cheshire cat grin.
“Go back to college, finish your degree, and then contact us after you graduate,” he announced as if he were bestowing the most valuable advice I’d ever receive.
I burst out laughing but preserved a modicum of decorum by not falling out of my chair. The “interview” ended moments later. If employers fixated on degrees and nothing else, I was as happy to ax them from my list as they were to disqualify me.
Four years later, I was writing regularly for Wall Street Journal, Reader’s Digest, USA Today, Washington Times and other newspapers. I was often covering hearings and other events on Capitol Hill. When I sought a press pass from the Senate Press Gallery as a freelance writer, I was given a couple 90-day temporary passes. When I returned for an extension, I ended up palavering with a couple Senate staffers who helped run the gallery. They were friendly guys with none of the officiousness that tainted other Hill staffers.
“We don’t give full-year passes to freelancers,” declared the older guy. “This would be a lot easier if you had a permanent affiliation.”
“Yep, I understand,” I shrugged.
His colleague had been nodding his head and then added, “If instead of being a freelance writer, if you were ‘Bovard News Service’….
“HEY!” I responded. “I am Bovard News Service!”
We shared a hearty laugh and for the next twenty years, I received annual Senate Press Gallery passes for Bovard News Service.
That press pass provided access to the Senate and House press galleries overlooking the congressional chambers. I spent many hours in the front row overlooking floor debates and colloquies, especially on topics on which I had closely followed and written.
At first, I was stunned by the pervasive falsehoods I heard from both political parties. But studying the eyes, movements, and vibe of veteran members of Congress, I soon realized that the Capitol was a Twilight Zone where facts and truth were simply irrelevant. Almost no one showed a speck of remorse or bad conscience regardless of their howlers. They weren’t lying: they were simply talking to their personal or party’s advantage. Words were simply tokens that congressmen played to seize power, burnish their image, or boost spending for a pet cause. When politicians contradicted themselves a few minutes or days later, it didn’t matter; that was irrelevant compared to legislative victories. The longer a person “served” in Congress, the more immune they became to both reality and decency.
Congressional debates often resembled a transcript from a village idiot convention. During battles over the 1990 farm bill, several congressmen characterized proposals to end handouts to big farmers as suspiciously akin to communism. Rep. Robin Tallon (D-SC), warned, “We do not have to imagine what life would be like without a responsible farm program. We need only look to the Soviet Union where people will wait in line for hours in hopes that they can buy a small portion of beef or bread.” Rep. Pat Roberts (R-KS) seconded the alarm: “This effort to end participation of our most successful farmers and investors in the farm programs sounds a lot like the way the Poles and Russians organized their agricultural policy before the Berlin Wall came down.” Communism was a bad thing, and ending farm subsidies was a bad thing, so anyone who advocated ending subsidies was a communist. Reducing political control over agriculture was the worst kind of tyranny. Those gems of logic sparked a Wall Street Journal piece titled, “How to Think Like a Congressman.”
In prior eras, the notion that politicians are untrustworthy rascals was part of American folklore. As Russell Baker, The New York Times Senate correspondent, lamented in 1962, “I spend my life sitting on marble floors, waiting for somebody to come out [of closed congressional hearings] and lie to me.” In a different era, Baker’s candor earned him a Times columnist spot.
But somewhere along the line, many or most Washington journalists lost their radar for government BS. The percentage of J-school grads became higher in Washington with each decade. Many of them were proud to write “The Government Told Me So” stories. Did the new cadres lose their instinctive skepticism in journalism school? I got some of my best stories in ways that would horrify journalism professors, including “How I Robbed the World Bank” and “Heisting the Secret U.S. Tariff Code.”
The changing standards were exemplified by Mary Lou Forbes, a Washington Times commentary editor who I wrote more than a hundred pieces for over twenty-five years. She was a sweet lady who was tough as nails. She won a Pulitzer Prize in 1959 for her coverage of Virginia desegregation battles while she worked at The Washington Star. In one of the final phone conversations we had before her death from cancer, she went on a tear about how she disliked the word “journalist.” She explained, “In my day, we were reporters”—a term she liked because it had zero pretension. In my R.I.P. blog tribute to her, I wrote that “her rare combination of grace, toughness, and sound judgment will not soon be equaled in Washington.” She never asked me whether I had a college degree, and I didn’t realize until checking recently that she had been a math major before she dropped out of the University of Maryland in the 1940s.
I view “journalist” as an occupation, not as a title or an honorific. In daily life, the term is simply another one of my flags of convenience—along with writer, reporter, investigator, muckraker, hooligan, policy analyst, author, and “innocent-looking bystander.”
But the push for professionalization of journalism snags Assange and brigades of citizen journalists who expose official wrongdoing. A 2022 survey found almost half of American television journalists favor government licensing for their occupation. This is indicative of how those journalists fail to understand either the nature of government or of journalism. Or perhaps they believe that kowtowing to officialdom is the high road to truth—or at least the greatest glory they will ever achieve? Perhaps this is what happens when the press corps becomes full of journalism majors with no clue on the long history of oppression.
Licensing knuckleheads have an ally in Oklahoma Sen. Nathan Dahm, who recently proposed the “Common Sense Freedom of Press Control Act.” Dahm, the state chairman of the Republican Party from Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, touted a bill to compel journalists to become licensed, comply with criminal background checks, complete a “propaganda-free” training course approved by politicians or their appointees, and submit to quarterly drug tests. Regrettably, there are no current proposals to require state legislators or members of Congress to take regular IQ tests.
The First Amendment was never entitled to be a class privilege of the media establishment. Squabbles over who is a journalist distract from the grave peril of government oppression for anyone who offends Uncle Sam. After Julian Assange was hit by a federal indictment, a New York Times editorial declared that the charges were “aimed straight at the heart of the First Amendment” and would have a “chilling effect on American journalism as it has been practiced for generations.” Assange and Wikileaks provided a huge booster shot to democracy by alerting Americans to how they had been deceived and misgoverned.
Assange’s courage and credibility matter far more than his credentials. But the fight over his fate is taking place in a time of growing threats to freedom of the press. 55% of American adults support government suppression of “false information,” even though only 20% trust the government. Relying on dishonest officials to eradicate “false information” is not the height of prudence. A September 2023 poll revealed that almost half of Democrats believed that free speech should be legal “only under certain circumstances.” Support for censorship is stronger among young folks—a grim harbinger for American freedom. The peril is compounded because The New York Times and Washington Post have jumped on the Disinformation Suppression Bandwagon.
At a time of growing perils, journalists, writers, muckrakers, and hooligans need to make common cause to resist the latest wave of repression. In this battle for the survival of freedom, there is even room for Hokie dropouts. But any journalist who favors government licensing of their occupation deserves all the tar and feathers we can find.
]]>It is not always easy to have a society where people are allowed to say whatever they want. People say things all the time that deeply, deeply offend me. And there are some that have said things about me that are tremendously hateful and untrue.
But if we are going to have a free society, people have got to be free to say whatever they want. So we should never support freedom of speech being taken away from anyone, because once we start going down that slippery slope it is just a matter of time before they come after our freedom to say what we want.
That is why what is happening in the state of Washington is so alarming. A new law would allow private individuals to collect up to $2,000 every time they report someone to the new “hate crimes and bias incidents hotline”…
Senate Bill 5427, after it is signed into law, would allow private individuals (note: this is not limited to American citizens) to report “bias incidents*” (see definition below) to the State Attorney General’s Office, with the possibility of receiving up to $2,000 of taxpayers money for this noncriminal incident. The bill was very clear: this is a non-crime which they will then forward to local law enforcement to investigate. What’s to investigate? No crime, no investigation.
The Progressives & Marxists who sponsored this bill say it is intended to help “victims of hate crimes” before a crime even happens. Say what? In reality, SB 5427 would create a “tattletale hotline,” undermine legitimate criminal investigations, and freeze, not just chill, speech & the press in Washington State. People will stop talking to others and writing to others except very close friends & relatives, for fear a greedy “Karen” will report them to Washington’s version of the Gestapo.
This is crazy.
Do we live in East Germany now?
It has been pointed out that those that use social media could make a fortune reporting their fellow citizens to the new “tattletale hotline”…
“Spend five minutes on Twitter on any given day and I assure someone would say something offensive under this law that we could call a ‘hate crime’ and collect $2,000 from the attorney general,” Conservative Ladies of Washington Founder and President Julie Barrett told the Senate Ways and Means Committee at a Feb. 20 public hearing. “It potentially target[s] people for actions they don’t like, but are not actually hate crimes. In collaboration with bills like HB 1333, this would create sort of a ‘tattletale hotline’ to report people one doesn’t agree with or doesn’t like.”
Of course we have seen similar efforts in other states.
In New York, Governor Kathy Hochul intends to massively expand the hate crime laws in her state…
Governor Kathy Hochul today highlighted her groundbreaking State of the State proposal to expand the list of charges eligible to be prosecuted as hate crimes and announced grant funding to strengthen safety and security measures at nonprofit, community-based organizations at risk of hate crimes or attacks because of their ideology, beliefs, or mission.
“The rising tide of hate is abhorrent and unacceptable – and I’m committed to doing everything in my power to keep New Yorkers safe,” Governor Hochul said. “Since the despicable Hamas attacks of October 7, there has been a disturbing rise in hate crimes against Jewish and Muslim New Yorkers. In recent years we’ve seen hate-fueled violence targeting Black residents of Buffalo and disturbing harassment of AAPI and LGBTQ+ individuals on the streets of New York City. We will never rest until all New Yorkers feel safe, regardless of who they are, who they love, or how they worship.”
And in Michigan, last year a bill was introduced that would have made it a felony if someone felt “terrorized, frightened, or threatened” by your words…
Last month, the Michigan House passed Bill 4474—legislation that would expand the state’s existing Ethnic Intimidation Act beyond current protections for religion, ethnicity and race, to categories including sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. HB 4474 would make it a felony hate crime offense to cause someone to “feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened” with words—deliberately misgendering someone, for example—subject to a potential penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
The Left has been pushing its “words are violence” premise for some time. But Michigan’s willingness to go the extra mile and criminalize gender-related speech has summoned a ghoul from some dystopian fever dream.
I certainly do not like hate speech.
Every day, people say things that are horribly offensive to me.
But I support their right to say those things, because I don’t want my freedom of speech to be taken away.
And the leftist elite will never be satisfied until they take things as far as they possibly can.
For example, a new law in Canada allows courts to put people in prison for the rest of their lives for “hate crime offenses”…
It also amends the Criminal Code to create a new standalone hate crime offence that would allow penalties up to life imprisonment to deter hateful conduct, as well as raise the maximum punishments for hate propaganda offences from five years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide.
“I’m the father of two youngsters and, like parents and grandparents around Canada, I’m terrified by the dangers that lurk on the internet for our children,” said Justice Minister Arif Virani Monday, as the Liberals unveiled the bill.
“I’m also a Muslim. The hatred that festers online is radicalizing people and that radicalization has real world impacts for my community, and for so many other communities,” added Virani.
So what constitutes a “hate crime” in Canada?
Well, over the years the rules have been written so vaguely that they could be used to go after just about anything.
As a result, many Canadians are now deeply afraid to say anything that is even remotely “offensive”.
Now this new law which is being pushed by Justin Trudeau will make things even worse. If you can believe it, this new law would actually allow authorities to take certain kinds of actions even before a hate crime has been committed…
Trudeau’s bill is called Bill C-63, and it’s a “hate crime bill” that primarily affects “social media” and essentially “criminalizes a human emotion.”
“If you have quote ‘fear of hate’ … you can get a judge to issue a kind of restraining order against your enemy before he does anything, before he says anything, and that restraining order can include house arrest, giving up any lawful firearms, limiting who he can talk to directly or indirectly, limiting the places he can go, and requiring him to to take urine and blood tests – just because you are quote ‘afraid’ he might in the future say some hate speech,” he explains, adding that the so-called perpetrator “doesn’t have to have done anything in the past” to be required to go through the process, making it “a pre-crime bill.”
What in the world has happened to Canada?
Once upon a time, it was such a nice place to visit.
The laws that seek to restrict how we express ourselves are never enforced uniformly.
Instead, we have seen example after example where conservatives are specifically targeted.
Here in the United States, the left believes in being very soft on violent criminals, but they will go after pro-life activists with all the fury they can muster.
Right now, a 59-year-old grandmother is probably going to spend the rest of her life in prison because she was attempting to convince women not to go into an abortion clinic…
In prison, every move an inmate makes is controlled. Ms. Idoni, 59, is getting used to that. She must, because she is facing more than 41 years in prison—the rest of her natural life.
Her sentence is expected to be the longest in the United States for someone charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a 1994 law that prohibits interfering with anyone obtaining or providing “reproductive health services.” It was seldom used until the Supreme Court’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization reversed Roe v. Wade in June 2022, which returned abortion regulation to the states.
Her crime: sitting near or in front of the doors of abortion clinics to give sidewalk counselors a few moments to talk to women before their abortion appointments and potentially change their minds. Nine women out of 10 give them the middle finger and keep walking, Ms. Idoni said. But some women do change their minds, and sidewalk counselors say the life of every baby saved is worth the risk.
More than 60 million babies have been killed in the United States since 1973, but those responsible for the killing are not being held accountable.
Instead, those that are trying to do something about the relentless slaughter are being viciously targeted by authorities.
We really do live in an upside down society.
Good is being called evil, and evil is being called good.
And if you try to speak out about what is happening, you could find yourself in an enormous amount of trouble.
They intend to completely crush all dissent, and they will never stop until they have achieved their goal.
Michael’s new book entitled “Chaos” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can check out his new Substack newsletter right here.
]]>Even Joe Biden’s administration tried to use public money to set up what was described as essentially the same as the “Ministry of Truth” found in the dystopian novel “1984.”
The result isn’t good, according to a new poll, which reveals only 1 in 4 Americans think their right to free speech is secure, and more than two-thirds say the nation’s trajectory on free speech is going the wrong way.
The poll is from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the Polarization Research Lab.
When asked about “whether people are able to freely express their views,” 69% of respondents said things in America are heading in the wrong direction, compared to only 31% who believe that things are heading in the “right direction,” the polling revealed.
Almost one-third of the respondents, 29%, said free speech is not at all secure.
“The average American already thinks that free speech in America is in dire straits. Most worryingly, they think it will get worse,” said FIRE chief research Adviser Sean Stevens. “These findings should be a wake-up call for the nation to recommit to a vibrant free speech culture before it’s too late.”
The poll was done Jan. 12-19 and FIRE said it is the first installment of a National Speech Index, a new quarterly survey intended to measure support for the First Amendment.
“Polarization not only divides Americans on policy, but it fractures our assessments of the stability of the bedrock features of our democracy,” said PRL Director Sean Westwood. “Nearly half of Democrats think free speech rights are headed in the right direction, compared to only 26 percent of Republicans. And more than a third of Republicans think the right to free speech is not secure, compared to only 17 percent of Democrats.”
The groups reported, “One alarmingly common belief that crosses partisan lines is that idea that the First Amendment ‘goes too far in the rights it guarantees.’ Around a third of Republicans and a third of Democrats ‘completely’ or ‘mostly’ agree with that statement. ”
The survey proposed several statements that, though offensive to some, are protected by the First Amendment.
“Roughly half of respondents (52%) said their community should not allow a public speech that espouses the belief they selected as the most offensive. A supermajority, 69%, said their local college should not allow a professor who espoused that belief to teach classes,” the report said.
Stevens said the results were not surprising, but were disappointing.
“Here at FIRE, we’ve long observed that many people who say they’re concerned about free speech waver when it comes to beliefs they personally find offensive. But the best way to protect your speech in the future is to defend the right to controversial and offensive speech today.”
For 25 years, WND has boldly brought you the news that really matters. If you appreciate our Christian journalists and their uniquely truthful reporting and analysis, please help us by becoming a WND Insider!
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.
]]>(Mercola)—C.J. Hopkins, an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin, speaks openly about the pathologized totalitarianism that is subtly taking over society. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he criticized lockdowns and COVID-19 shot mandates, as well as the censorship of dissenters.
During the early phases of the pandemic, Hopkins’ work was heavily censored by YouTube and Facebook, which went so far as to even suspend or restrict the accounts of people who tried to share Hopkins’ posts.1 Now, he’s facing another challenge to freedom and autonomy, as he’s facing criminal charges for a satirical tweet.
German Government Prosecutes Hopkins Over Tweets
The Berlin State Prosecutor’s office is pursuing criminal charges against Hopkins for “disseminating propaganda, the content of which is intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization.”2 The propaganda referenced is two tweets from 2022, which include an image with a mask carrying a faint image of a swastika. Writing in The Atlantic, journalist James Kirchick notes:3
“To argue that Hopkins was advancing National Socialism by imposing a swastika over a face mask is absurd. He was clearly doing the opposite: invoking a symbol of what is widely regarded as the most evil and destructive ideology in human history to express his feelings — however histrionic — for state-promulgated public-health policies he dislikes.
Hopkins was ‘comparing the evolution of one system which I think is totalitarian in nature to the evolution of another totalitarian system that we all know,’ he told me, not glorifying fascism.”
But in Germany, national laws prohibit Nazi insignia, which is why Amazon banned the sale of Hopkins’ book, “The Rise of the New Normal Reich,” which also features the swastika-emblazoned mask, in Germany, the Netherlands and Austria. If Hopkins is found guilty, he could be fined about $4,000 or sent to jail for 60 days. Kirchick writes:4
“Hopkins sees his ordeal as part of a broader ‘criminalization of dissent’ sweeping the Western world. ‘Basically anyone prominent, halfway prominent, and even little fish like me, if you get on the radar of challenging the official ideology, the program of the day, they’re making examples of people is basically what it is,’ he told me.
Against his lawyer’s advice, Hopkins republished the tweets in his Substack newsletter — sparking, as he reported, a second criminal investigation, this time for minimizing Nazi crimes.”
Are Authoritarian Measures Accelerating in Germany?
In “The Rise of the New Normal Reich,” Hopkins details how measures of totalitarian control are being normalized around the world. Depending on where you live, you may or may not be experiencing these things firsthand.
“If you’re aware of how people are behaving in different countries or in different states in the U.S., what have you, there are many places where it is becoming just completely normal to walk around with a medical-looking mask on, and people don’t think twice about segregating and banning people and imposing vaccine mandates and what have you.
All of these measures that were rolled out during the shock and awe phase are just subtly becoming a part of daily life,” he explained during our 2022 interview.5
“We’re being conditioned to walk around in our lives, terrified of some pathogen that is going to come and attack us, or some health threat. It’s really, it’s a wholesale revision of reality, and it’s frightening.”6 At the heart of his argument is that the global-capitalist ruling establishment, which Hopkins refers to as GloboCap, is using fear as a strategy for control over the population.
In Germany, Hopkins says fascist measures have been quickly accelerating. “Seriously, assuming you don’t live here, you likely have no idea how fascistic German society and culture has become,” he wrote in November 2023, “and how quickly the transformation has occurred. It began in the Spring of 2020 with the introduction of the ‘Corona measures,’ and has been intensifying ever since.”7
“The shock and awe phase that we went through in ’20 and ’21 is over,” Hopkins said in our interview. “You can’t sustain shock and awe like that forever. What we’re experiencing now is really the normalization of the pathologization of society.”8 Even the charges against Hopkins seem baseless, as, even in Germany, Nazi imagery is allowed for certain purposes, including countering anti-constitutional activities. Kirchick continues:9
“So far, although he retains U.S. citizenship, Hopkins’s case has attracted little attention in the American media. But his predicament offers an important opportunity to examine how we think about the most loaded political symbols — and to cherish the exceptional free-speech culture ensured by America’s First Amendment.
On its face, the charge against Hopkins seems specious. Although the display of Nazi imagery is generally prohibited in Germany, the country’s criminal code allows the display of such symbols for ‘civic education, countering anti-constitutional activities, art and science, research and education, the coverage of historic and current events, or similar purposes.'”
The Goal Is to Silence Dissenters and Control Society
In the past, totalitarian regimes used drastic and obvious shows of control, putting people into concentration camps. Today’s ruling establishment is far more subtle in its tactics, but possibly even more dangerous. Hopkins says:10
“I don’t think they can put us in camps … they don’t have to. If you look at what’s happening to the economy, if you look at what’s happening to our ability to travel, to our ability to communicate, I mean, the censorship that is going on, I think the technologies that are being deployed in the service of this new form of totalitarianism are much more subtle and, in many ways, much more effective.
I’ve made the point, online, I made the point in the book again, I don’t think global capitalism can go openly totalitarianism in the same way that systems in the 20th century did. I think it’s suicidal for global capitalism. It needs to maintain the simulation of freedom, the simulation of democracy, and so the technologies that are being deployed are much more subtle.”
While people may not end up in prison-like camps, the end-game may be no less restrictive. Technologies like the upcoming central bank digital currency (CBDC), for instance, could easily lead to tight control over your finances, limiting your ability to purchase food or pay rent if your access to your funds is turned off. In the case of Germany prosecuting Hopkins, he says:11
“Basically, the government no longer needs to justify its crackdown on dissidents with plausible legal (or even just rational) arguments.
They know that the majority of the German public supports the ‘New Normal’ Gleichschaltung campaign, or at least will look the other way as they carry out police raids on the homes and offices of ‘Islamic influencers,’ ban demonstrations (exactly as they did in 2020), censor and criminalize dissent, imprison political dissidents based on blatantly false criminal charges, and otherwise make a mockery of the German constitution.”
In explaining why he republished the swastika-mask images again, knowing it would likely lead to additional charges against him, Hopkins wrote:12
“No, I am not a glutton for punishment. I’m not at all enjoying my introduction to the so-called ‘German legal system.’ … The goal of … prosecutions like mine (and those of many other dissidents currently) is (a) to punish us for speaking out against ‘New Normal’ totalitarianism by making our lives as miserable as possible, (b) to make examples of us to discourage others from speaking out, and (c) to intimidate us into shutting … up.
Totalitarians, fascists, and other power freaks are essentially just glorified schoolyard bullies. They may cloak themselves in the mantle of the law, but their modus operandi is brute force … their message is simple: ‘either do what we say, or we will hurt you.’ … The point is, never give in to a bully. Never reify a bully’s ‘authority.’ If you do, you will find yourself sucked into the bully’s sadistic, nihilistic ‘reality.’
You will be playing by the bully’s rules. And that is all ‘reality’ actually is, a set of rules we agree to play by, or, in this case, do not agree to play by.
So, getting back to my criminal case, and the Berlin State Prosecutor’s latest attempt to bully me into shutting up and demonstrating my ‘respect’ for the ‘authority’ and ‘power’ of the Berlin State Prosecutor … I do not respond well to threats. I do not take orders from totalitarians and fascists, or any other type of authoritarians or bullies.
So that is why I have republished those Tweets, and why I will continue to republish those Tweets every time the German authorities threaten me with additional criminal charges for refusing to obey their ‘authority.'”
Dissent Is Essential in a Free Society
When citizens are punished for criticizing government policies, we should all worry that totalitarianism is near. Using clever tactics like censorship and attacks on people’s reputations and credibility, those in control are moving toward taking away something that’s essential in a free society — dissent. Kirchick explains why, regardless of how you feel about Hopkins’ message, his prosecution should trouble us all:13
“Some might argue that, as a permanent resident of Germany, Hopkins ought to have known what he was getting into by conjuring the country’s ultimate taboo, and that his posturing as a sort of latter-day Martin Niemöller, the anti-Nazi theologian, would not endear him to his hosts.
‘Of course; it’s Germany,’ he said, when I put this to him. ‘Of course they’re hyper about anything that is promoting the Nazis and, frankly, God bless them. That’s the way I feel about it; I’ve always supported it and understood it even though I’m a free-speech absolutist.’
One can call his method of argument likening anti-COVID policies to Nazism misguided, intellectually lazy, or tasteless — I personally find it to be all three — but endorsing ‘the aims’ of National Socialism it is not. Which strongly suggests that Hopkins is being punished not for promoting an outlawed political movement from the German past but for criticizing a government of the German present.
Such a conclusion is only reinforced by the second proceeding against Hopkins for the tweet ridiculing one particularly powerful member of that government, the country’s health minister.
That a citizen could be tried on these grounds in a Western democracy should trouble us, and Germany’s unique experience as the birthplace of Nazism offers no justification. On the contrary, precisely because that fraught history gives Germany ample reason for vigilance about support for fascism, it must be scrupulous in how it regulates expressions of said support.
According to the country’s criminal code, expression aimed at ‘countering anti-constitutional activities,’ as Hopkins’s swastika-branded mask clearly was, is protected. A government that prosecutes a writer for calling its policies fascistic unwittingly validates the criticism. Even if some find Hopkins’s views and the way he expresses them offensive, that does not lessen the danger that his prosecution represents.”
- 1 TK News by Matt Taibbi May 13, 2021
- 2 Substack, CJ Hopkins July 3, 2023
- 3, 4, 9, 13 The Atlantic January 3, 2024 (Archived)
- 5, 6, 8 Dr. Mercola interviews C.J. Hopkins, interview transcript, page 3
- 7, 11 Substack, CJ Hopkins November 25, 2023
- 10 Dr. Mercola interviews C.J. Hopkins, interview transcript, pages 11, 12
- 12 Substack, CJ Hopkins September 10, 2023