Facebook Continues Its War on Dissent: Farrakhan, Alex Jones, Yiannopoulos, Loomer & Other Critics of Jews & Moslems Banned By Silicon Valley Censors
Louis Farrakhan, Alex Jones and other ‘dangerous’ voices banned by Facebook and Instagram
New York (CNN Business)Facebook announced Thursday that it had designated some high-profile people, including Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who’s notorious for using anti-Semitic language, and right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, as “dangerous” and said it will be purging them from its platforms.
DISSIDENTS THE WEST WORSE THAN THE SOVIET BLOC
FREE SYNDICATION: We are partners not rivals. Reprint our news stories to quickly build your news platforms.
We’re used to Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Saudi Arabian dissidents. However, the most notorious deniers of free speech are found under upturned rocks in the West.
Investigative journalist Julian Assange sought sanctuary in London’s tiny Ecuadorian embassy in 2012. The whistle-blower refuses to be silenced. The Australian has been awarded more than a dozen journalism awards. Once evicted under a dodgy-deal, blackmail and bribery, Assange faces life imprisonment, perhaps a death sentence.
Thanks to a clerical error by the U.S. attorney’s office in Alexandria, Virginia, the existence of sealed criminal charges against the Wikileaks founder has been confirmed.
What is typically left out is that Wikileaks originally released the diplomatic cables in piecemeal form, with names removed to prevent loss of life and minimize harm. It was only after a Guardian journalist’s error led to the full legally edited cables leaking to third parties on the web that Wikileaks also published them. Assange even attempted to warn the office of Hillary Clinton, then U.S. Secretary of State.
In other words, Wikileaks behaved precisely as any responsible journalist would in handling sensitive material should by removing information that could cause harm. The removals stopped only when they became pointless. The Pentagon later admitted under oath that they could not find any instances of individuals losing their lives as a result of being named in Manning’s leaks to Wikileaks.
When it comes to negligence a far stronger case can be made against Hillary Clinton for the way she handled State Department emails. Yet, no criminal charges have been laid against a woman mired in corruption and whose snail-trail lies over a score of corpses.
Assange is being targeted because he dared to challenge the western establishment but he is far from alone. Western governments routinely target scores of news reporting dissidents.
Imprisoned in Germany merely for investigating holocaust related fraud; Ursula Haverbeck (90), lawyer Sylvia Stolz, Music tutor Monika Schaeffer and her brother Alfred Schaeffer. In France, Professor Robert Faurisson, Brigitte Bardot, and Vincent Reynouard. The list of Western dissidents is as long and silent as are the names on the Cenotaph situated in Whitehall.
Any who associated with Julian Assange are pursued. Another well-known dissident is the National Security Agency (NSA) whistle-blower Edward Snowden. It was a time of globalist unease at the power of the internet to undermine authority.
Who would have thought that the highest court in Europe would uphold a case in which a woman was prosecuted for blasphemy against Islam? Who would have thought that Britain, the supposed birthplace of liberalism and the free press would ban an independent journalist from its shores for satirising the same religion?
Who would have thought that Germany, whose living memory of the totalitarian Stasi is just three decades old, would put its largest opposition party under surveillance? Just a few years ago, all three would sound far-fetched. But cases like these have become common as elites in virtually every western country mount a panicked attempt to contain the rise of populism.
A case in point is Tommy Robinson, the British critic of Islam who was dragged through Britain’s courts on fuzzy contempt-of-court charges. Sentenced to an astounding thirteen-month imprisonment, Robinson was eventually freed after a successful appeal. Robinson now awaits a final trial before Britain’s Attorney General. Shaky charges that have been successfully appealed were exploited to persecute a British citizen who was inconvenient to the establishment.
Alison Chabloz is endlessly re-cycled through British courts at the urging of Jewish special interest groups. She has been sentenced, fined and ordered to work for the State without charge.
Her crime, she satirises the spin of World War II propagandists. Again in Britain, Jez Turner is sentenced to 12 months in prison merely for publicly stating that Britain’s regime is overly influenced by Zionists; ironically, Zionists boast much the same thing.
In the self-styled cradle of democracy, one of the last European countries to give voting rights to men and women, Michael Walsh was handed down 6 x 4-month prison sentences for publishing fliers critical of immigration.
Britain routinely bans foreign politicians and media figures from the country for being right-wing. Michael Savage, Geert Wilders, Lauren Southern, Pamela Geller, and Robert Spencer all enjoy this dubious distinction. Theresa May, who was responsible for internal affairs and immigration when Spencer and Geller were banned, is the Prime Minister.
Trump’s White House, supposedly an ally of populists, failed to intervene on behalf of the American citizens banned from the U.K. for expressing populist viewpoints.
Julian Assange, a leftist oriented libertarian may share little ideological ground with right-wing critics of Islam. But they all share at least one thing: persecution by the Western States coupled with anti-establishment political speech or activities.
We also see attacks on free speech, with governments and politicians across the West pressuring Silicon Valley to suppress its critics. These toxic unaccountable, unelected elite can sweep away a person’s livelihood in minutes, and cut their political message off from millions of American citizens. PayPal, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook routinely disconnect the accounts of even small ‘c’ conservatives.
Undeniably, the West is as repressive as was the former Soviet Bloc. Who would have thought that countries like Ecuador, Russia, and Iran would offer sanctuary, safe passage and freedom to speak to Western dissidents; journalists, authors, poets, writers, libertarians and political activists?
Edward Snowden faces life in Russia as an exile for revealing the National Security Agency (NSA) mass surveillance of Americans. Before that, he sought refuge in Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.
WARMAN IS AT IT AGAIN: COMPLAINS TO FACEBOOK & GETS ANTI-MOSLEM PAGES TAKEN DOWN
‘It only takes a 30 second Google search to confirm why most of these individuals and groups are a problem in relation to hate speech,’ Warman said. ‘Hate speech has no place in Canada.’”
Notice, the victims got no trial or right of response. And what is ‘hate spech’? Why it’s speech some privileged minority hates.
Warman, who has long battled far right websites, had sent a list of suspected Canadian anti-Muslim pages to Facebook following the Quebec City mosque attack that left six worshippers dead.
Facebook has ‘taken action on those that qualify as hate speech,’ a company spokeswoman said Tuesday. While some of the pages were removed, others remained up but specific posts were deleted.
Six of the 22 Facebook links in Warman’s complaint were no longer online, among them the Cultural Action Party, Canadians Against Justin Trudeau and Soldiers of Odin – Ontario South.
‘The reason I forwarded the list of Facebook profiles to their management in Canada is because they had been reported to me with concerns about hate speech,’ Warman said.” [Who reported them? Was Warman’s complaint written on his own time?]
“According to Facebook’s community standards code, the company removes content that ‘directly attacks’ people based on their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.
‘Organizations and people dedicated to promoting hatred against these protected groups are not allowed a presence on Facebook,’ it reads. ‘As with all of our standards, we rely on our community to report this content to us.’ But most of the links Warman had complained about were not taken down, despite having provocative names such as the Worldwide Coalition Against Islam and the Canadian Anti Islamic Force.
Canadian Facebook pages down following complaint they were anti-Muslim, possibly related to Toronto protest
A German couple were taken to court and sentenced after they created a Facebook group that criticised migrants and the government’s mass migration policy.
The couple, who live in the German town of Vierkirchen, stood accused of inciting hatred toward migrants via the Facebook group that the pair had created called the “Anti-refugee movement” (AFB). The group is said, by the court, to have been a clear incitement against migrants and as a result both 27-year-old Peter M. and his 26-year-old wife Melanie M. were found guilty of hate speech, Merkur reports.
The statements on the Facebook group did not seem to contain anything overtly nationalistic or Nazi-inspired, but rather expressed deep concern about the situation in Germany relating to mass migration.
According to the court, the page, which has been taken down, in its first post stated: “The war and economic refugees are flooding our country. They bring terror, fear, sorrow. They rape our women and put our children at risk,” which along with a German flag as the groups profile photo, was enough to bring the couple to court for hate speech.
The group amassed around 900 followers in the two months that it was active. The beginning of the end for the group happened when a user reported the page to Facebook, who have been upfront about cooperating with the German government incensoring speech they deem as critical of migrants.
The Facebook user who reported the page took a further step and reported it to their local police station in Lübeck whereupon police were able to ascertain that the administrator of the page lived in Vierkirchen and handed the investigation over to the local police.
At the trial, Peter M. defended his remarks online and said: “One can not even express a critical opinion of refugees without getting labelled as a Nazi. I wanted to create a discussion forum where you can speak your mind about refugees.” Peter M. talked about how, in his role as an administrator of the group, he would weed out any pro-Nazi or radical remarks and delete such posts but since Facebook had deleted the page he couldn’t present the evidence to the court.
The judge in the case was unforgiving in his verdict on the site saying that “the description of the group is a series of generalisations with a clear right-wing background”. After sentencing Peter M. to a nine month suspended prison sentence and his wife to a fine of €1,200 the judge said: “I hope you understand the seriousness of the situation. If you sit in front of me again, you will end up in jail.”
The case bears similarities to other cases where Facebook and the German government have shut down pages critical of migrants. A 16-year-old girl who complained that she feared for her safety in a video posted to Facebook had her page taken down, and police in Berlin raided the apartments of several Facebook and Twitter users for their anti-migrant comments online. PEGIDA leader Lutz Bachmann was also taken to court over comments he made on Facebook and found guilty of hate speech.