BEAT THE LOCKDOWN: HEAR PAUL FROMM IS BACK IN VANCOUVER TALK FRIDAY, JULY 31, 2020
The Canadian
Association for Free Expression Proudly Presents
Paul
Fromm
Director,
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Winner
of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994
The
COVID-19 Scamdemic: Stripping Canadians of Their Liberties & Creating a Cashless
New World Order of Sheep
&
Anti-Racism
is a Code Word for Anti-White: How the Cultural Marxist Wrecking Crew
(politicians, most media and many corporate traitors) Have Made War on European
Canadians https://bitchute.com/video/J2YMkidM
Tech giant Apple banned the developer account
of free speech-focused social media network Gab, preventing the company
from creating apps for iPhones and other Apple devices, shortly after
the startup submitted a complaint to the Department of Justice about Big
Tech’s anti-competitie business practices.
Breitbart News spoke with the CEO of Gab.com, Andrew Torba, about the
company’s recent developments. As Torba wrote on Twitter, the free
speech social media platform recently submitted a complaint to the DOJ
which it hopes will spark an investigation into the business practices
of the Masters of the Universe in Silicon Valley. Gab aimed to question
if these firms were acting in a deliberately anti-competitive manner
against smaller “alt-tech” businesses, and Apple’s recent actions may
have proven Gab’s point.
The Gab.com Twitter page made a number of tweets explaining the company’s viewpoint, these can be seen below:
BREAKING: Gab’s attorneys have submitted a
complaint to the Department of Justice in hopes of sparking a serious
investigation into Big Tech’s business practices to determine if, and
how, they are behaving in a deliberately anti-competitive manner against
alt-tech businesses.
Coordinated deplatforming, when done in such a
way as to limit competition in the free market, is illegal. Based on our
experience, we believe Silicon Valley companies are colluding to
exclude challengers to existing social media companies.
We hope the DOJ will mount a vigorous and
thorough investigation into this matter. In particular the duopoly on
mobile app distribution that Apple/Google have with 98% marketshare.
Shortly after this thread of tweets, Gab found that its new Dissenter
Web Browser had been rejected from Apple’s app store. Apple also chose
to ban the firm’s developer account entirely, citing “objectionable
content,” as the reason. Gab’s Dissenter browser is a web browser that
only delivers content that users purposefully visited, like Google
Chrome or Apple’s Safari browser, yet Apple believes that the app falls
under it’s “objectionable content” label.
BREAKING: Gab’s Dissenter Web Browser was
rejected by Apple today. Furthermore, we were banned from our App Store
developer account for “objectionable content.” For a web browser.
We have filed this information with the Department of Justice and urge them to investigate. pic.twitter.com/raw8u3cgX2
Gab CEO Andrew Torba told Breitbart News that Apple admitted that the
app itself did not break the company’s terms of service but rather they
were banning it because it was built by Gab. The company has since
reported this additional info to the Department of Justice. In a
statement, Torba told Breitbart News:
Coordinated deplatforming, when done in such a way as to
limit competition in the free market, is illegal. Based on our
experience, we believe Silicon Valley companies are colluding to exclude
challengers to existing social media companies. Big Tech understands
that curated walled gardens lose their vibrancy and fail, much as
Compuserve and AOL failed.
Gab is focused on giving The People back their digital sovereignty.
We are no longer simply building a free speech social network. We are
building the free speech internet. Our free speech web browser,
Dissenter, is only the beginning. We will be releasing a full product
line of open source free speech software that is decentralized, built,
and controlled by The People.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolanor email him at lnolan@breitbart.com
Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what’s clicking on Foxnews.com.
Tim Tebow, former NFL quarterback and current New York Mets minor
league outfielder, tweeted a video Monday talking about the Bible and
followers noticed that the social media company marked his tweet as
“sensitive content.”
Twitter
alerts users to sensitive content, usually of graphic images or videos.
But in this case, Tebow’s video was about educating his followers about
God’s word in the Bible.
“Bible
believers, when we look at the Bible, and we see a lot of the heroes, a
lot of times they truly were wounded deeply before they were ever used
greatly. So maybe you’re going through a time in your life where you
feel like you’ve just been wounded greatly. It hasn’t been your year,
hasn’t been your day — you just don’t feel like this is your time,”
Tebow said in the clip.
“You never know what God is doing with
your life. You never know what he is preparing you for. So many times in
the Bible when we look at the heroes, there were times in their life
where — if they stopped, if they quit, if they said, ‘No, God, I’ve had
enough’ — then they would have missed out on the most impactful, most
influential times of their life.
“Maybe
that is the next step for you. Maybe that is tomorrow. Maybe that is
next week, maybe that is next year. But when we quit, we will never know
what we missed out on. We will never know what’s in store for us.”
Tebow
said the followers of God get to trust in him blindly because “we know
how much he loves us.” He reminded followers that God loves them and
that they should hold onto faith “in your time of need.”
Twitter later told The Blaze that they marked the video as sensitive content as an error.
“The Tweet … was flagged as potentially sensitive media in error. It has been corrected,” the company said.
Trump’s Executive Order Aims to End Left-Wing Social Media Censorship of Conservatives
President Donald Trump has had it with the social media behemoths abusing the law by picking sides in the political, social, and cultural issues of our time – usually the side he’s not on.
And he’s particularly keen that the social media platforms wield great power to influence the masses ahead of the November election, so he’s preparing some executive actions to curb their ‘election meddling’ because Democrats in Congress won’t (since their party is benefitted by the censorship of conservatives). sponsor
“If Congress doesn’t bring fairness to Big Tech, which they should have done years ago, I will do it myself with Executive Orders,” Trump wrote ahead of a House hearing on big tech Wednesday. “In Washington, it has been ALL TALK and NO ACTION for years, and the people of our Country are sick and tired of it!”
Slated to appear before the House Judiciary Committee regarding potential antitrust violations: Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai.
During an interview with the Daily Caller in June, the president expressed his frustration with the repeated examples of Left-wing social media platform censorship of right-leaning opinion.
“It’s really unfair what’s going on with the conservative voice. You’d solve the entire problem of the various, you know, monopolists, if you ever voided Section 230.”
Trump is referring to a section of the Communications Decency Act which says, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
The section gives platforms immunity for content posted, but over time the same platforms have begun censoring content — like a publisher.
So what are they? Platforms or publishers?
In response, Trump issued an executive order Monday aimed at making the distinction that, if they are upheld, will prohibit the kind of censorship taking place.
The Office of the Press Secretary issued this statement:
On Monday, the Department of Commerce, as directed by President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, filed a petition to clarify the scope of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The petition requests that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) clarify that Section 230 does not permit social media companies that alter or editorialize users’ speech to escape civil liability. The petition also requests that the FCC clarify when an online platform curates content in “good faith,” and requests transparency requirements on their moderation practices, similar to requirements imposed on broadband service providers under Title I of the Communications Act. President Trump will continue to fight back against unfair, un-American, and politically biased censorship of Americans online.
“When it comes to issues of public safety, the government is the one who must act on behalf of society at large. Law enforcement cannot delegate our obligations to protect the safety of the American people purely to the judgment of profit-seeking private firms. We must shape the incentives for companies to create a safer environment, which is what Section 230 was originally intended to do,” Attorney General William Barr said last month when the Justice Department issued its recommendations for the president.
“Taken together, these reforms will ensure that Section 230 immunity incentivizes online platforms to be responsible actors. These reforms are targeted at platforms to make certain they are appropriately addressing illegal and exploitive content while continuing to preserve a vibrant, open, and competitive internet,” he added.
“These twin objectives of giving online platforms the freedom to grow and innovate while encouraging them to moderate content responsibly were the core objectives of Section 230 at the outset.”
I am sitting here on a pile of diapers and could not be more proud
after having climbed Mount Everest. Motherhood, including pregnancy and
giving birth, is a monumental achievement and only now I know how
shamelessly belittled this accomplishment has become in the West.
Years of schooling and education prepare white women to become
exchangeable numbers working to increase the profits of a corporation
but neither prepares them for this most difficult and exhausting task
necessary to keep our people and culture alive. We all know why and how.
Therefore, you will not be surprised that Google has completely
buried the search keywords leading to WhiteDate.Net or positioned us to
page 7 and lower to make sure hardly anybody finds this unique white dating site by typing ‘white dating site’ or whites dating whites’. Before only keywords such as ‘dating
a white man’ or ‘date white men’ or ‘looking for a white man to date’
were banned from the results which also explains why so few women who
are likely to search those keyword combinations find WhiteDate and the
ratio women/men has been spreading from 1:6 to 1:12!
The online war of the big corporations against whites is undeniable
and especially evident when you look at Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit
that banned WhiteDate from advertisement because of ‘hate speech’. I
still have not understood what is hateful about white people for simply
wanting to preserve themselves as there is nothing to understand and
never any reasons provided. No other ethno-dating site faces hate or racist accusations as well as marketing bans but the only explicit ethno-dating site for white people globally, ours.
Now, I am not the kind of person to bemoan anything as too busy
finding solutions. I urge you, male and female members of WhiteDate, to
take action and invite women who are seemingly aware of the anti-white
agenda on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, trad forums etc. Help get more
women on-board who are likely to make good partners whilst our male
members, as vanguards, are paving the way to impose white dating as the norm and make it nolens volens get accepted by the anti-whites.
Together, we will grow organically by word of mouth until the day the
critical number of us have woken up and we can form our local offline
cells to speak freely, fall in love, build families, enjoy white life
together, and last but not least, defend white interests
unapologetically.
Katie Hopkins permanently banned from Twitter for hateful conduct
Katie
Hopkins’ Twitter account has been taken down by the micro-blogging
website for good after a petition was started to get her account removed
Katie Hopkins has been permanently removed from using Twitter.
Her Twitter
profile – which she used to tweet under the handle @kthopkins – now
states she has been suspended – and this time is it for good, a
spokesperson from the website has confirmed.
The
outspoken personality’s micro-blogging account has been taken down
after a petition was started by social media user to get her booted off
the site.
Katie Hopkins has been removed from Twitter
(Image: Twitter)
Related Articles
Over 75,000 people signed their name to the Change.Org petition to get the former Apprentice star’s account suspended.
The
petition bio read: “Unbelievably, Katie Hopkins has been given a
platform to insult, abuse and cause outrage for far too long. Attacking
victims of Child Sex Exploitation is possibly the most disgusting act
that any human can do.
“Does she have no boundaries? The scary
thing is, this could happen to her own children right under her nose –
being as self obsessed as she Is, how would she see the signs?
Her Twitter profile – which she used to tweet under the handle @kthopkins – now states she has been suspended
When
you subscribe we will use the information you provide to send you these
newsletters. Sometimes they’ll include recommendations for other
related newsletters or services we offer. Our Privacy Notice explains more about how we use your data, and your rights. You can unsubscribe at any time.
“I think it’s about time Twitter took action and removed her from their platform, just as Facebook have done with Britain First.
“Freedom of speech is something I believe in. Freedom of hate speech isn’t, I’m sure many people feel the same way.”
A Twitter spokesperson told the Huffington Post:
“Keeping Twitter safe is a top priority for us – abuse and hateful
conduct have no place on our service and we will continue to take action
when our rules are broken.
“In this case, the account has been permanently suspended for violations of our hateful conduct policy.”
The
far-right racist has gained a large amount of backlash and hate over
the years for the messages she sends out on the social media platform.
Most recently she caused a stir by mocking the Black Lives Matter protests.
On Wednesday Hopkins tweeted: “Today is #whiteoutwednesday. I will shortly be posting a picture of my arse. Thank you.”
It came after she took aim at footballer Marcus Rashford by posting a number of jibes regarding his free school meals campaign.
It comes after a petition was started online to get her booted off the micro-blogging site
(Image: Getty Images)
The Man Utd forward’s efforts convinced the Government to
back down on their stance not to provide meals to disadvantaged children
during the school holidays.
Rashford himself comes from a family
of five children and explained how his experiences of his mother
struggling to put food on the table was the motivation behind his
efforts to help those less fortunate.
But Katie was outraged by the decision, tweeting Rashford over the issue suggesting he should pay to feed the children himself.
Hopkins
contacted Rashford on Twitter, writing: “Do you think women should
think about how they are going to feed a child before they decide to
have it?
“I do not want to pay to feed other people’s kids. You are welcome to.”
It is not the first time Katie has been suspended from Twitter.
In January her one million follower strong Twitter account has temporarily suspended.
If there is one positive thing that can be said about this terrible
plague we’re enduring, it is that now and then, it gives the Trudeau
government some really, really great ideas.
Sure it was only a
couple of weeks ago that the Liberals came up with the idea that they — a
minority in Parliament, remember — should give themselves the power to
tax and spend for the next two years, without having to get
parliamentary approval. It was a truly brilliant idea, except that it
ignored the fact that approving government spending is one of the most
important functions of Parliament. Take away its authority over spending
and the House of Commons might just as well be any old bingo hall, or
with a little imaginative renovation, a one-of-a-kind Costco store.
Now,
compliments of Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc, we learned that
the Liberal government is contemplating legislation to make it an
offence to, as a CBC report put it, “knowingly spread misinformation
that could harm people.” In plain language, this government is openly
thinking of making itself the official censor of what can and cannot be
said about COVID-19. Pure brilliance again, don’t you agree?
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, right, embraces Privy Council President Dominic LeBlanc in 2019.
Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Well, actually, no. Don’t even think of it. Better still, to
borrow a phrase from Greta Thunberg: how dare you? There is already a
government that has that power, and in some cases brutally exercises it.
That is the government of the Communist Party of China.
And what
has it done with that power? It barred telling the truth about COVID-19,
and instead told lies about it. On the where it happened, when it
happened, how it happened and how it spread, the Chinese government
confounded, confused and lied about a plague that has now hobbled the
whole planet. And China “officially reprimanded” the doctor who
initially tried to warn people about the coronavirus, and who, with
dread irony, actually died from it. (A postmortem apology followed from
the government. That surely helped.) Admire the Chinese government if
that’s your thing, but on this subject, it is not an example to be
followed.
So, let’s tap this serpent of an idea on its little head
before its fangs emerge and it develops a real appetite. The problem
with government having control over what is said and written, completely
aside from it being the utter contradiction of a liberal democracy, is
that governments — especially on a matter such as this pandemic — are
simply not competent enough to know what is right and what is wrong.
Legislators in the House of Commons convene to give the government power
to inject billions of dollars in emergency cash to help individuals and
businesses through the economic crunch caused by the coronavirus
disease outbreak, on Parliament Hill, April 11, 2020.
Blair Gable/Reuters
What is required for a government to pass a law against
misinformation? To begin with, it presumes an infallible authority
that’s able to make judgments on what is, or is not, correct
information. Even worse, it presumes the government has the ability to
make judgments on a matter that, incontestably, is not yet fully
understood by anybody.
This virus is new. The investigation of its
nature, transmission, the best policies to confront it, the extent of
the response to it, even the nature of the response — all of these
elements are, at best, in an incomplete and early stage of
understanding.
Experts have varying degrees of skill and
knowledge. If experts disagree, which happens often, will some of them
be silenced? In actuality, a divergence of opinions can be seen as a
path to the full truth emerging. But this cannot happen if the
government gags those who may seem to be wrong at the present moment.
A man wears a mask as he walks past a mural showing a modified image of
the Chinese Communist Party emblem, in Shanghai, on Jan. 28.
Aly Song/Reuters
On the purely political front, there are equal objections to
giving government censorship powers. Governments take to extensions of
their power like bears to honey. The more power they get, the more they
believe they alone should exercise it. Power swells the ego. Add more
power, and if you follow the analogy, a little balloon soon thinks it’s
the Hindenburg. And a government swollen with power does not like other
voices.
It was only a couple of weeks ago that Prime Minister
Justin Trudeau barred the leader of the Opposition from joining talks
with other opposition leaders because, in Trudeau’s own memorable words,
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer “disqualified himself from
constructive discussions with his unacceptable speech earlier today.”
Yet
it is not for Trudeau, or any other prime minister, to determine what
is “acceptable speech” from his constitutionally positioned critic, the
leader of the Opposition. Nor is it proper for this minority government,
which has had enough struggles of its own over misinformation — on
masks, on screening at airports, on our relative security from the
pandemic — to decide what the rest of us can, and cannot, say or write
about this unique crisis.
French Intellectual Sentenced to 2 Months in Prison For Calling Mass Immigration an “Invasion”
[Free speech in France? Forget about it! The “liberte”, part of the slogan of the French Revolution has been replaced by state censorship and laws promoted by anti-White and anti-free speech minorities. France’s current “hate law”, the Fabius-Gayssot Law of 1990, was named after its two sponsors, Laurent Fabius, a socialist Jew and member of the National Assembly, and Jean-Claude Gayssot, a Communist Party deputy.]
Forced to pay 1800 euros to anti-racism organizations for his crime of opinion.
French intellectual Renaud Camus has been given a 2
month suspended prison sentence for saying that mass immigration into
Europe represents an “invasion.”
Camus will only avoid
jail by paying 1800 euros to two “anti-racist” organizations, SOS
Racisme and the LICRA (International League against Racism and
Anti-Semitism).
The writer, who is the author of Le Grand
Remplacement (The Great Replacement), was charged with “public
incitement to hate or violence on the basis of origin, ethnicity,
nationality, race or religion.”
The
conviction stems from a November 2017 speech in Colombey-les-deux
Eglises to the National Council of European Resistance in which Camus
declared, “Immigration has become an invasion.”
“The irreversible colonization is demographic colonization, by
the replacement of the population,” said the author, adding, “The ethnic
substitution, the great replacement, is the most important event in the
history of our nation since it has existed; as with other people, if
the story continues, it will not be that of France.”
Camus also called for a “national consensus of resistance” to
oppose Islamization in “the struggle for the salvation of our common
civilization, Celtic, Slavic, Germanic, Greek-Latin, Judeo-Christian.”
The part of Camus’ speech that specifically garnered the
attention of judges was when he talked about European people being
replaced.
Camus said mass immigration “is the substitution, the tendency to
substitute everything with its emulator, normalized, standardized,
interchangeable: The original with its copy, the authentic with its
imitation, the true with the false, the mothers with surrogate mothers,
the culture with free time and entertainment.”
France suffers Islamic terror attacks on such a routine basis
that it’s barely even an important news story anymore. Many of those
terrorists are radicalized by mosques that escape any police scrutiny,
but Camus must be punished for his crime of opinion.
And there you have it. Free speech is now a crime in France.
We have recently reviewed your usage of PayPal’s services, as reflected in our records and on your websitewww.moonrockbooks.com. Due to the nature of your activities, we have chosen to discontinue service to you in accordance with PayPal’s User Agreement. As a result, we have placed a permanent limitation on your account.
We ask that you please remove all references to PayPal from your website. This includes removing PayPal as a payment option, as well as the PayPal logo and/or shopping cart.
If you have a remaining balance, you may withdraw the money to your bank account. Information on how to withdraw money from your PayPal account can be found via our Help Center.
We thank you in advance for your cooperation. If you have any questions or need our support, please contact the PayPal Brand Risk Management Department ataup@paypal.com.
Sincerely,
PayPal Brand Risk Management
PayPal
So, we called them, and this is what a machine told us (we weren’t allowed to speak to a human):
We appreciate you choosing PayPal as your payment partner. Unfortunately, we are unable to continue offering our services to you at this time, due to the nature of your business, or the activity in your PayPal account, and the risk it poses to PayPal. This decision can’t be overturned. If you owe refunds to any of your buyers, you can use the money in your PayPal account to refund them. The money in your PayPal account will be held for 180 days. After 180 days, we’ll email you information on how to withdraw your money.
They shut down our business for a few days and hurt us pretty good, because they gave us no warning at all, after a nearly five-year business relationship.
They inconvenienced our customers, as we were forced to only accept cash, check or money orders, until we secured a new payment processor, which took us a few days to do.
What’s the “risk,” that an alternative view might dare get exposure, to shine the light on government and media lies?
Right, only they’re allowed to tell us what’s right and what’s wrong.
Please support our right to exist in the marketplace of free ideas.
