Thank you SO MUCH @Matt Taibbi for restacking our report on Murthy v. Missouri. You have been like a patron saint to ys at HONESTMEDIAPROJECT.SUBSTACK.COM
This is so incredibly critical for our country, no matter party affiliation or political beliefs. What happened to the ACLU defending literal NAZIS to have the right to free speech? Today the ACLU is dead quiet on this case.
Useful short summary. Thank you Michael! There is of course a WHOLE LOT more to the Censorship Industrial Complex. The media & propaganda tools long used to further Deep State interests outside the USA have now been turned inward, weaponized to subvert the American public and democracy.
The deeper anyone digs into this, the more obvious the ultimate effects of the corrosive tactics — censorship & suppression — that until recently had been largely kept hidden.
These operators (and their Mainstream Media mouthpieces, just look at recent New York Times, CBS & NBC distraction stories) undercut a future for free speech while making a mockery of constitutional rights.
Folks should really take a deep dive into the (mainly Substack) work of Matt Taibbi & Michael Shellenberger on the #TwitterFiles and the #CTILeague. I also heartily recommend careful attention to what Mike Benz has uncovered.
He does periodic walk-and-talks on TwitterX that are amazing and is a must-follow there: @MikeBenzCyber
Another good place for detail: the Foundation for Freedom Online, from Benz & associates:
These neoliberal judges don’t seem to understand that handing our government more power to limit 1st Amendment rights and to censor people cuts both ways: should Trump be elected he will surely deploy this decision to greatly advantage himself and silence dissent. .
We’re screwed. The DEI Court will rule that we are too foolish to be trusted to speak freely, and will overturn the First Amendment. It’s the way of things now. No freedom will be allowed to persist uncrushed.
You may be right, but I am not so sure. I think SCOTUS is going to be forced to say, precisely, what the government CAN DO and what they CAN'T DO. I don't think either side is going to be fully happy, but I do think this is the moment for the high court to define persuasion vs. coercion between the government and social media companies.
to: Michael Kane, Pardon me if I am off point. You may be correct. Although I wish not and that the people sitting on the bench would be in tune with the spirit of the constitution rather than pragmatism and compromise. I find it surprising that a legal definition of persuasion in relation to coercion needs to be defined, but these definitions will be within the vectors of defining the legality of propaganda and by that the limits of freedom. Just a way of creating a new detailed rule book for limitations on power. Isn't that a way o circumventing the point of the lawsuit?
We need SCOTUS to weigh in and say precisely what the US Gov CAN DO and can't when collaborating with third parties to monitor speech on social media.
If they don't, then the FED can do whatever it wants because their position is they are merely exercising THEIR free speech rights to communicate with others to keep Americans "safe"
If SCOTUS does NOT provide any guidance We the people ...
Thank you SO MUCH @Matt Taibbi for restacking our report on Murthy v. Missouri. You have been like a patron saint to ys at HONESTMEDIAPROJECT.SUBSTACK.COM
This is so incredibly critical for our country, no matter party affiliation or political beliefs. What happened to the ACLU defending literal NAZIS to have the right to free speech? Today the ACLU is dead quiet on this case.
Useful short summary. Thank you Michael! There is of course a WHOLE LOT more to the Censorship Industrial Complex. The media & propaganda tools long used to further Deep State interests outside the USA have now been turned inward, weaponized to subvert the American public and democracy.
The deeper anyone digs into this, the more obvious the ultimate effects of the corrosive tactics — censorship & suppression — that until recently had been largely kept hidden.
These operators (and their Mainstream Media mouthpieces, just look at recent New York Times, CBS & NBC distraction stories) undercut a future for free speech while making a mockery of constitutional rights.
Folks should really take a deep dive into the (mainly Substack) work of Matt Taibbi & Michael Shellenberger on the #TwitterFiles and the #CTILeague. I also heartily recommend careful attention to what Mike Benz has uncovered.
He does periodic walk-and-talks on TwitterX that are amazing and is a must-follow there: @MikeBenzCyber
Another good place for detail: the Foundation for Freedom Online, from Benz & associates:
https://foundationforfreedomonline.com/
Well said!
And thank you for the compliment
Taibbi and Shellenberger are phenomenal!
Go to our BIG CORRUPTION section on this Substack, you will find a lot more coverage od the CIC:
https://honestmediaproject.substack.com/s/government-corruption
Will do!
These neoliberal judges don’t seem to understand that handing our government more power to limit 1st Amendment rights and to censor people cuts both ways: should Trump be elected he will surely deploy this decision to greatly advantage himself and silence dissent. .
💯 💯 💯
We’re screwed. The DEI Court will rule that we are too foolish to be trusted to speak freely, and will overturn the First Amendment. It’s the way of things now. No freedom will be allowed to persist uncrushed.
You may be right, but I am not so sure. I think SCOTUS is going to be forced to say, precisely, what the government CAN DO and what they CAN'T DO. I don't think either side is going to be fully happy, but I do think this is the moment for the high court to define persuasion vs. coercion between the government and social media companies.
to: Michael Kane, Pardon me if I am off point. You may be correct. Although I wish not and that the people sitting on the bench would be in tune with the spirit of the constitution rather than pragmatism and compromise. I find it surprising that a legal definition of persuasion in relation to coercion needs to be defined, but these definitions will be within the vectors of defining the legality of propaganda and by that the limits of freedom. Just a way of creating a new detailed rule book for limitations on power. Isn't that a way o circumventing the point of the lawsuit?
Good points
We need SCOTUS to weigh in and say precisely what the US Gov CAN DO and can't when collaborating with third parties to monitor speech on social media.
If they don't, then the FED can do whatever it wants because their position is they are merely exercising THEIR free speech rights to communicate with others to keep Americans "safe"
If SCOTUS does NOT provide any guidance We the people ...
...are screwed