Justice Facebook Style — Punishment Clear, Accusations Hazy

Justice Facebook Style — Punishment Clear, Accusations Hazy
Globalists, up until 20 years ago, dominated and controlled most mass media in North America and Britain. They could suppress or demonize free speech supporters, White nationalists and Revisionists. Their soap opera news, which wasn’t news, but approved “good guys” versus “bad guys” (us) misinformed the public as the media sought to shape or make news, not report it
Then, came the Internet and all sorts of new features — Facebook, Twitter, You Tube. Suddenly, all sorts of voices could be heard. The control freaks of anti-White globalism are still trying to shove the genie back into the bottle.
Here’s just a tiny example of the censorship Zuckerberg (is he Irish?) at Facebook invokes to try to hinder free expression.
Free speech supporters should start demanding measures, such as:
1. Media like Facebook that possess a virtual monopoly should be treated like public utilities. They must serve everyone, without restriction, UNLESS as actual crime is being committed on line.
2. Creative supporters of free speech must develop  their own platforms and technology to circumvent the censorship. This is what GAB has done to counter thought control at Twitter.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Blocks
Facebook has policies to stop behavior that other people may find annoying or abusive. If your account is blocked, you will still be able to log on to Facebook, but you may not be able to use features.
Our security systems are currently blocking you from doing something on Facebook, such as posting or sharing. This block is temporary and can last up to 30 days, depending on the reason for the block.
We understand that you may have had good intentions or may have not known about our policies on acceptable behavior, and we also understand that this block can be frustrating. To help keep Facebook open and welcoming, we try to prevent people from unintentionally misusing Facebook, even if you felt that what you did was acceptable.
We may block people from doing something on Facebook when:
  • Something you posted or shared seems suspicious or abusive to our security systems. This can last up to a few days.
  • Messages or friend requests you sent were marked unwelcome. This can last up to a few days.
  • You’ve done something that doesn’t follow our Community Standards. This can last up to 30 days
To avoid blocks like this in the future, you can:
  • Review our Community Standards to understand what kind of sharing is allowed on Facebook.
  • Only message people you already know.
  • Only send friend requests to people you know.

Faith Goldy Fights the Anti-democratic Leaden Hand of Bell Media Censorship

Faith Goldy Fights the Anti-democratic Leaden Hand of Bell Media Censorship

 

Amazing news conference by Faith Goldy and lawyer Clayton Ruby as they seek an injunction to force Bell Media to run her ad. here the ad. It is innocuous. We see the leaden hand of elite censorship at work.

Just in from the “Land of the (once) free and the Home of the Brave” Holocaust Skeptic Diane King’s Vimeo Accounts Cancelled

 

 

Just in from the “Land of the (once) free and the Home of the Brave” Holocaust Skeptic Diane King’s Vimeo Accounts Cancelled

 

 

To ensure delivery, add no-reply@vimeo.com to your address book.

Vimeo

Dear Diane King,

Your account has been removed by the Vimeo Staff for violating our Guidelines.

Reason: Vimeo does not allow videos that harass, incite hatred, or include discriminatory or defamatory speech.

For more information on our content and community policies, please visit: https://vimeo.com/guidelines.

If you believe this was an error, please reply to this message as soon as possible to explain. (Please be aware that Vimeo moderators take action as violations come to our attention. “I see other people doing it” is not a valid explanation.)

Otherwise, we hope that you find a video platform better suited to your needs.

Sincerely,
Vimeo Staff

TM + © 2018 Vimeo, Inc.
555 West 18th Street, New York, NY 10011
Terms | Privacy Policy

TO THE UNETHICAL, BRAIN-DEAD, SOVIET-MINDED VIMEO CENSORS

A number of friends of mine have recently simultaneously had their VIMEO accounts removed. As we watched YouTube remove channels of the people who are Politically Incorrect, (not just people like myself who discuss the World War II issues, but all kinds of issues largely to the right of the political spectrum, we have watched them be targeted and marginalized. Now because this was not occurring with VIMEO at that point, we thought that VIMEO was taking the high road in regard to political correctness, fully supporting the FREEDOM OF SPEECH mandate in our Bill of Rights. In fact, I even boasted that VIMEO was seemingly championing free speech – we were cautiously optimistic … BUT WRONG!!!

My friend and I had a PRO account, which entails spending between $200 and $250 for the year. We thought that as a result of that we might be given additional or even special consideration, like being sent a warning. But that was not the case.  It appears that VIMEO received the PC word to ‘ax’ holocaust skeptic discussions without consideration.  This was done very swiftly, so apparently, VIMEO doesn’t feel our business is worth their time.  And you likely are being compensated for your betrayal and treachery – why ‘dis’ a 3-year customer who is spending the money for the PRO account! I hope it’s worth it to have received your 30 pieces of silver, selling your soul to your masters instead of doing the right thing!

Well here’s the thing about that, frankly, we don’t feel VIMEO is worth OUR time. You stole the money from us that we paid to you in good faith for the service you had provided. You terminated our channels. (Yes I know your policies excuse you from refunding us. That still doesn’t make it right.)  It seems you are permitted (for any reason) to terminate the business relationship for your ill-gotten gains!  You obviously don’t care about your reputation in the social media community – business must be THAT good. Maybe you’re being compensated to betray your patrons in the Soviet-style draconian method of dealing with free speech.

But, actually, you have done us a huge favor. Rather than depending on perhaps what used to be the major social media outlets such as Facebook, YouTube and VIMEO yourself, where we were formally supportive and would throw business your way, we no longer have to. We are fully prepared to explain and express what VIMEO has done to us in the same way we have talked about YouTube. We will warn others about your treachery.
There is NO excuse for what you have done to me and my friends, especially with our nearly 3-year business relationship with you.  SHAME ON YOU and actually, if this is the way you conduct business – GOOD RIDDANCE to you and your TREACHERY!
Diane King

**********************

JIM RIZOLI’S BITCHUTE:

Paul Fromm, Jim Rizoli, Diane King on the Brian Ruhe Show — We’ll Remember Who Are Enemies Were

Paul Fromm, Jim Rizoli, Diane King on the Brian Ruhe Show — We’ll Remember Who Are Enemies Were

YOUTUBE.COM
June 5, 2018. Revolution Radio with Brian Ruhe, Jim Rizoli, Diane King, Paul Fromm, Pete Papaherakles…

Trudeau on the Skids but The Beast Grows More Dangerous 

Trudeau on the Skids but The Beast Grows More Dangerous 
Paul Fromm’s talk in Vancouver, March 23, 2018
 

* That voyage to India

* radical Sikhs infiltrate the government

* plans to bring back Sec. 13 (Internet censorship)

* Canadian video journalist, Lauren Southern,  banned from Britain

If you love this content, love that it’s free for everyone, please…

Political Censorship: Facebook Bans NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC Cover for `Nudity“

Political Censorship: Facebook Bans NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC Cover for `Nudity“

Was it the tame, though morally disgusting picture of National Geographics cover or the political message that occasioned a Facebook ban on the post below saying it violated their `community standards`?

Facebook is notorious for censorship of White nationalist or conservative posts.

Paul Fromm

Director

Canadian Association for Free Expression

The planned genocide of Europeans through mass alien immigration and race mixing

Image may contain: 2 people, people standing and text

PRESENTATION TO TORONTO LIBRARY BOARD AGAINST PLANS TO IMPOSE POLITICALLY CORRECT RULES TO PREVENT MEETINGS

PRESENTATION TO TORONTO LIBRARY BOARD AGAINST PLANS TO IMPOSE POLITICALLY CORRECT RULES TO PREVENT MEETINGS
 
The enemies of free speech, the usual suspects — the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, B’nai Brith, Bernie Farber, Warren Kinsella and the street thugs of the Antifa raised a huge ruckus in July to try to shutdown CAFE’s memorial for free speech lawyer Barbara Kulazska. The Library hung tough. the meeting proceeded without a hitch. However, the Library was clearly spooked and promised to “review” its policies. The review goes to the Library Board tonight.  It is a vile document of cloying political correctness which would let staff deny a booking on the mere suspicion that remarks might expose a group or person to “contempt”; that is, criticism. Here is the presentation I shall giver.
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
 

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W

PH: 416-428-5308 ; FAX: 905-566-4820

Frederick Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

Presentation to the Toronto Library Board by Frederick Paul Fromm – December 11, 2017

1.  The Toronto Library Board is considering revisions to its  Community and Event Space Rental Policy What concerns us are changes to the Denial of Use Section of the Policy.

“The Purpose section has been revised to add language about the Library’s objectives of providing equitable access to services and maintaining a welcoming supportive environment free from discrimination and harassment. 

 

· The Denial of Use sections 4.4 (a) and 5.4(a) both state much more strongly that room bookings will be denied or cancelled when the Library reasonably believes the purpose of the booking is likely to promote, or would have the effect of promoting, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group, hatred for any person on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, language, creed (religion), age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, membership in a union or staff association, receipt of public assistance, level of literacy or any other similar factor. 

 

· Under the same Denial of Use sections 4.4(b) and 5.4(b), violations of the Criminal Code of Canada (including hate propaganda laws) and the Ontario Human Rights Code are specifically referenced as unacceptable.”

 

2. First, the Toronto Public Library is not a private club. It belongs to all citizens and should be open to use, including rental of rooms for meetings, to all citizens, without discrimination, if for no other reason than all taxpayers pay for it.

 

3. It is fair to ask persons renting facilities to be aware that they must obey the law, including the Criminal Code and various bylaws. Thus, for instance, a smokers’ rights group should be able to rent a room for a meeting, but, if they announced, they would stage a smoke-in to dramatize their views, it would make sense to deny the booking.

 

4. People renting Library facilities must be responsible to their own words and actions. Staff should not have to try to guess what their words or actions might be.

 

5. In renting meeting space, the Library is not condoning or supporting any point of view, any more than having a book on the shelves means the library endorses the book’s conclusions. Clearly, the library contains many books with wildly different views on a given subject.

 

6. The revised policy is saddling staff with an impossible task — to decide, in advance, of an event, what will be said at that event and whether words that haven’t yet been uttered  are “likely to promote, or would have the effect of promoting, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group, hatred for any person on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, language, creed (religion), age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, membership in a union or staff association, receipt of public assistance, level of literacy or any other similar factor.”

 

* “Promotion of hatred” is a bogeyman. No person or group who has rented Toronto Public Library facilities has, to our knowledge, ever been charged or convicted of “hate”; that is, Section 319 of the Criminal Code. This is a restrictive policy seeking to solve a problem that does not exist.

 

* But, it’s not just “hatred” but contempt that is being prohibited. “Contempt” is a very broad term, meaning dislike of a negative opinion of. It is hard to see how any criticism based on “race, religion, gender orientation or political affiliation or any of the other mentioned grounds” could pass muster. Suppose someone wrote a book entitled Mike Harris 20 Years Later. If the book repeated some of the common criticisms of the time — that Mike Harris balanced the budget on the backs of the poor and squeezed the education system —  and if the author were to speak about his book at a meeting, might is not be likely that the meeting would promote contempt of Mr. Harris because of his political affiliation and, therefore, should be cancelled?

 

* “Contempt” was included in the Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act but was repealed by Parliament in 2013. It is overly broad and basically chills any criticism on a whole range of topics.

 

* One wonders what “any other similar factor” might be.

 

7. This policy could lead to the banning of all sorts of meetings dealing with contentious topics. It is an affront to free speech, especially as it involves subjective “prior restraint” which is a violation of Canadians’ basic right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

 

7. This policy is a reaction to an organized campaign by censorship minded groups and individuals who protested a memorial to a lawyer who represented controversial clients. these groups took the view that, because they disagreed with Barbara Kulazska’s clients, her friends and admirers should not be allowed to meet to remember her. The Library did the right thing in permitting that memorial to proceed.

 

8. In October, C-FAR Books sought to book a meeting for a talk by Victor Fletcher, editor and publisher of Toronto Street News. We were turned down on October 3 and informed: “  Given the history of the individual and group involved in the booking and the publication being discussed, Library staff believe that the booking could lead to a violation of hate speech legislation.” This decision was unreasonable and outrageous. Neither the individual or group involved in the booking or Mr. Fletcher or Toronto Street News has ever been charged, let alone convicted under Sec. 319. We fear that this censorship is a harbinger of what will happen should the Board adopt this new policy.

 

9. We fear the hecklers’ veto. If an organized lobby makes enough noise in trying to shut down a meeting of people they don’t like, the new policy is so broad that it gives staff the power to shut down any gathering more controversial than the Rosedale Orchid Society.

 

10. The policy contains no independent appeals process against the denial of a room booking. This is especially important as staff decisions may be made only on the basis of accusations or allegations made by groups or individuals seeking to get a meeting cancelled.

 

10. May we suggest a truly inclusive, open door policy. Any person or group, who is a taxpayer,  should be able to rent a meeting room, if available. They are made aware that they are responsible for their own conduct and for obeying all relevant laws. The community should be informed that the library follows a free speech policy. Meetings will not be cancelled because the speakers or topics are controversial.

 

11. The proposed policy will not buy peace but will embolden those who have no tolerance for views critical of their own group or ideology to try to shut down groups or speakers to whom they object.

Cultural Marxist Britain’s Tories Trample Free Speech Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet

Cultural Marxist Britain’s Tories Trample Free Speech

Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet

By Jonathan Turley

October 06, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  For years, civil libertarians have warned that Great Britain has been in a free fall from the criminalization of speech to the expansion of the surveillance state. Now the government is pursuing a law that would make the repeated viewing of extremist Internet sites a crime punishable to up to 15 years in prison. It appears that the government is not satiated by their ever-expanding criminalization of speech. They now want to criminalize even viewing sites on the Internet. As always, officials are basically telling the public to “trust us, we’re the government.” UK home secretary Amber Rudd is pushing the criminalization of reading as part of her anti-radicalization campaign . . . which turns out to be an anti-civil liberties campaign.

We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in France (here and here and here and here and here and here) and England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Even the Home Secretary has been accused of hate speech for criticizing immigrant workers.

Prime Minister Theresa May has previously called for greater government control of the Internet. Now, the government not only would make reading material on the Internet a crime, but would not necessarily tell you what sites will be deemed the ultimate click bait. Rudd told a Conservative Party conference that she wants to crackdown on people “who view despicable terrorist content online, including jihadi websites, far-right propaganda and bomb-making instructions.” So sites deemed “far-right propaganda” (but not far-left propaganda) could lead to your arrest — leaving the government with a sweeping and ambiguous mandate.

The law would move from criminalizing the downloading of information to simply reading it. The move confirms the long criticism of civil libertarians that the earlier criminalization would just be the start of an ever-expanding government regulation of sites and speech. Rudd admits that she wants to arrest those who just read material but do not actually download the material.

In the past, the government assumed near total discretion in determining who had a “reasonable excuse” for downloading information.

No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media

Get Our Free Daily Newsletter

You can’t buy your way onto these pages

Britain has long relied on the presumed benevolence of the government in giving its sweeping authority in the surveillance and regulation of speech, including the media. This move however is a quantum shift in government controls over speech and information. Indeed, this comes the closest to criminalization not just speech but thought. It is a dangerous concept and should be viewed as disqualifying for anyone who want to hold (or retain) high office.

What is particularly striking is that this new law seeks to create a new normal in a society already desensitized to government controls and speech crimes. Thee is no pretense left in this campaign —  just a smiling face rallying people to the cause of thought control.

Sound familiar?

We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. … We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.George Orwell, 1984

Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law.  https://jonathanturley.org/

 

 

Internet Censorship Ramps Up as Second “White Nationalist” Website Has DNS Seized

Internet Censorship Ramps Up as Second “White Nationalist” Website Has DNS Seized
It now appears that the Jews in the USA have found a much better way of circumventing the U.S. Constitution’s freedom of speech laws. No long, drawn-out court battles in order to shut down someone’s website like what happened to me and my former site RadicalPress.com. Just transfer the right to censor out of the hands of the government to Jewish controlled private sector tech industries and bingo! any website criticizing the Jew agenda is potentially subject to the same injustice now being meted out to Stormfront and the Daily Stormer. 
 
What shall we do when we can no longer express ourselves publicly?
———

Internet Censorship Ramps Up as Second “White Nationalist” Website Has DNS Seized

Screen Shot 2017-08-29 at 10.09.26 PM.png
The ongoing program to censor the internet of all dissenting views took another step forward with the news that the “Stormfront” website—one of the oldest pro-white sites on the web—has had its Domain Name Servers (DNS) seized, only a few weeks after the “Daily Stormer” domain was seized in similar fashion.
Whatever one thinks of either of the sites in question, the precedent has now been set that any website, espousing any view, can be forced offline through this method—with apparently no recourse whatsoever.
“Stormfront’s” DNS is held by the Network Solutions company, and, as explained on that company’s website, a Domain Name Servers (DNS) is the “Internet’s equivalent of a phone book.” This server “maintain[s] a directory of domain names and translate[s] them to Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. This is necessary because, although domain names are easy for people to remember, computers or machines, access websites based on IP addresses.”
The DNS associated with a domain name translates it into a “machine friendly” IP address (which is a string of numbers separated by decimal points) and directs an internet connection to the correct website.
As shown on the “Whois” domain lookup service, Network Solutions has placed the “Stormfront” website’s DNS in a “clientDeleteProhibited; clientHold; clientTransferProhibited; clientUpdateProhibited” status.
According to the “Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which is the nonprofit organization responsible for coordinating the maintenance and procedures of several databases related to the namespaces of the Internet, a “clientHold” status “tells your domain’s registry to not activate your domain in the DNS and as a consequence, it will not resolve. It is an uncommon status that is usually enacted during legal disputes, non-payment, or when your domain is subject to deletion.”
The other status reports (“clientRenewProhibited,” “clientTransferProhibited,” and “clientUpdateProhibited”) all make it impossible for the legal domain owner to move or even access the domain. This is, without any doubt, pure theft of a legally-owned domain name.
This was also exactly what happened with the “Daily Stormer” website as well.
It is unclear whether this was the result of the domain registrar companies or of ICANN. The latter organization used to be under the control of the US government, but it was transferred into private ownership in late 2016—a move which has left the right to be on the internet in the hands of a handful of tech industry companies.
Ultimately, this means that any website, anywhere, could at any time, have its domain name seized by unknown and unseen people, and effectively be erased from the internet. It is an issue which goes far beyond “left” or “right,” and cuts to the very core of fundamental rights of speech and freedom of expression.
Clearly, the only solution to this matter is to put ICANN back under government control, in the same way that government issues driving licenses, building permits and so on. Leaving the right to determine who can, and who cannot, be on the internet, to the whim of a handful of big tech company individuals, is a highly dangerous step which can have ramifications far beyond a handful of “white nationalist” websites.