New Book Warns Julian Assange Is Being Tortured
By Neenah Payne Julian Assange is an Australian editor, publisher, and activist who founded WikiLeaks in 2006. WikiLeaks is a site created for whistleblowers to… New Book Warns Julian Assange Is… Go to Source Author: Activist Post… Read more

So You Say You Want a Revolution? President Biden Continues to Talk Revolution if the Court does not Rule as Demanded – JONATHAN TURLEY

“So you say you want a revolution.” When they sang those lines, the Beatles could well have been talking about Democratic leaders today. Revolution seems much in the minds and the rhetoric of politicians who are continuing to threaten swift responses to the Court if it rules against their wishes. The latest armchair revolutionary is President Joe Biden himself who went on Jimmy Kimmel to do the first sit down interview in months. To his credit, Biden was promising only a “mini-Revolution.”

Others have gone full revolutionary. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., joined the growing ranks of members of Congress in issuing a warning to the Supreme Court: reaffirm Roe v. Wade or else. The “else” varies from promises to pack the Court to personal accountability for justices. For Shaheen, it is a promise of “revolution.”

Clearly, these leaders are using over-heated rhetoric and do not support violence. They no more want true revolution than Sen. Chuck Schumer was calling for the killing of Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch when he declared on the steps of Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Calling for revolutionary change in politics is as common as calling on people to “fight” political opponents or legislative actions. For example, with rioting continuing in Brooklyn Center, Minn. and around the country, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA, went to Minnesota and told the protesters that they “gotta stay on the street” and “get more confrontational.” However, these same politicians have insisted that such references are literal when made by their opponents. Notably, Democrats are holding hearings this week on how Republicans bear responsibility for the Jan. 6th riot due to their calls to “fight” against certification of the 2020 election. On that day, there is no question that Trump whipped the crowd into a frenzy. I was critical of the speech while he was giving it. However, Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Trump also stated: “Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy…And after this, we’re going to walk down – and I’ll be there with you – we’re going to walk down … to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.” There is little attention to how such rhetoric has been common on the left. Of course, having leaders like Biden and Shaheen channeling revolutionary rhetoric is more vapid than violent. You can put on a beret and chomp on a cigar but it does not make you Che Guevara. It is clear that he meant a political revolution, but the President was engaging in the same ultimatum and saber rattling. It is the underlying message that is worrisome. It is part of a long series of threats to the Supreme Court that it must yield on the interpretation of the Constitution or face radical changes to the institution. The President is not alone in presenting the Court with this yield-or-else choice. Last year, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass, and others stood in front of the Supreme Court to announce a court packing bill to give liberals a one-justice majority. This follows threats from various Democratic members that conservative justices had better vote with liberal colleagues . . . or else. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, is not willing to wait and has called to pack the Court. She denounced the court for voting wrongly on decisions and, perish the thought, against “widely held public opinion.” The attacks on the institution have become attacks on the members of the institution. Law professors like Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinksy have called the justice “partisan hacks” while others have supported targeting the individual justices at their home. Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz declared that “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified.” Such calls can take on a more menacing meaning in the twisted minds of some who may think that “more aggressive tactics” include showing up at a justice’s house with a Glock handgun, zip ties, and burglary tools. Again, that is not the intention of such remarks but the endorsement of targeting justices at their homes shows a complete collapse in our sense of decency and responsibility. Sixties Radical Abbie Hoffman once said that the “first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it.” It remains to be seen if the public will allow these politicians to get away with it and support calls for changing the Court or retaliating against individual members. With the support of many in the media and academia, the reckless rhetoric is likely to continue.

However, there should be no question about the import of the underlying message that it is appropriate for politicians to pack or legislatively change the court if it does not rule the way that they and “public opinion” demand. Such proposals would destroy one of the core institutions of our constitution system.

That is why “when you talk about destruction” of our traditions of judicial review, as the Beatles declared in 1968, “you can count me out.”

Disinformation Panels, Corrupt FBI Activity, Govt Control over Speech in Social Media, The J6 Propaganda Effort, it is One Long Continuum | Centinel2012

Posted originally on the conservative tree house on June 9, 2022 | Sundance

Barack Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; instead, what they did was take the preexisting system and retool it, so the weapons only targeted one side of the political continuum. This point is where many people get confused, it is also the most critical element that Washington DC must hide in the aftermath.

The systems of government were retooled during the administration of Barack Obama to fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between government and the American people. Their success in that objective is the discomfort you see, feel and deal with every day.

The people who created the Fourth Branch of Government used every tool in their arsenal to outlast and remove Donald Trump; then they turned to the one cognitively challenged candidate who would not be a threat to the construct, Joe Biden, and installed him through fraud and mail-in ballots. Everything is downstream from this construct…

Stay Calm and Censor On: Musk Summoned to Parliament to Answer for his Pledge to Restore Free Speech – JONATHAN TURLEY

… I previously wrote about Hillary Clinton’s call on European countries to pass censorship laws to force social media companies like Twitter to regulate speech even after Elon Musk’s pledge to restore free speech to Twitter. Now the Parliament has called on Musk to testify and to explain his alarming pledge to restore free speech.

The Biden Administration’s Disinformation Governance Board head, Nina Jankowisz, previously called upon Great Britain to impose state censorship rules. That call has grown since Musk’s purchase. Until now, a unified front of corporate censors was able to maintain an extensive system of censorship with the encouragement of politicians and pundits, including Joe Biden and Democratic members .

The head of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in the House of Commons, Conservative MP Julian Knight has assured her countrymen that they can stay calm and censor on. She issued a letter Musk to appear before the committee to answer for his terrifying suggestion of free speech:

“At a time when social media companies face the prospect of tighter regulations around the world, we’re keen to learn more about how Mr Musk will balance his clear commitment to free speech with new obligations to protect Twitter’s users from online harms.”

Like the EU’s censorship plans under Digital Services Act, the proposed Online Safety Bill would introduce state censorship through the purview of Ofcom (The Office of Communications), the broadcasting regulator in Britain. It would allow the company to fine firms up to ten per cent of their global revenue should they violate ill-defined “harm” standards.

If passed, Clinton and others hope that the Europeans can replace corporate censorship with good old-fashioned state censorship. This includes confiscatory fines for anything deemed “grossly offensive.“ The bill would allow countries like Great Britain to impose censorship on the rest of the world.

The decline of free speech in the United Kingdom has long been a concern for free speech advocates (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Once you start as a government to criminalize speech, you end up on a slippery slope of censorship. What constitutes hate speech or “malicious communications” remains a highly subjective matter and we have seen a steady expansion of prohibited terms and words and gestures. Even having “toxic ideologies” is now a crime.

Great Britain would now make censorship one of its greatest exports. To do so, they first have to stomp out advocates for free speech like Musk by threatening to bankrupt his company if it tries to restore free speech to the Internet.

US government defends ‘Ministry of Truth’ — RT World News

The newly unveiled ‘Disinformation Governance Board’, operating
within the US Department of Homeland Security, has triggered a massive
pushback, forcing DHS chief Alejandro Mayorkas to make several
appearances on national TV in an attempt to clarify how the unit will

Many critics, including top Republicans, have blasted the
initiative as a crackdown on free speech, akin to a ‘Ministry of Truth’
taken from the pages of George Orwell’s dystopian novel ‘1984’.

Speaking on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, Mayorkas dismissed the criticism by claiming that thought policing is “precisely the opposite of what this small working group within the Department of Homeland Security will do.”

it will do is gather together best practices in addressing the threat
of disinformation from foreign state adversaries from the cartels and
disseminate those best practices to the operators that have been
executing in addressing this threat for years,” he explained, after CNN’s Dana Bash said it was still not clear “how this governance board will act.”

New Jan. 6 Bodycam Videos Show DC Police Officer Assaulting Unconscious Protester
New Jan. 6 Bodycam Videos Show DC Police Officer Assaulting Unconscious Protester Authored by Joseph M. Hanneman via The Epoch Times, A District of Columbia police officer used a large wooden stick to strike the body and head of protester Rosanne Boyland three times as she lay motionless on the ground on Jan. 6, 2021, according…

Is Twitter “Burning The Evidence” By Unshackling Conservative Accounts?
Is Twitter “Burning The Evidence” By Unshackling Conservative Accounts? Authored by Steve Watson via Summit News, Conservative Twitter users have noticed a massive uptick in followers and engagement following Elon Musk’s Twitter buy, while leftists on the platform are experiencing the inverse, prompting some to wonder if the company is undoing evidence that it rigged…

“Better Off Just Keeping His Mouth Shut”: University of Central Florida Hit With Major Free Speech Ruling – JONATHAN TURLEY

There is a major victory for free speech out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit this week. An appellate panel ruled that the discriminatory-harassment and bias response team policies at the University of Central Florida (UCF) likely violate the First Amendment. The policies have many of the common ambiguous terms discussed on this blog from other schools as chilling free speech. The decision in Speech First v. Cartwright also contains an unenviable reliance on UCF’s own counsel for proving that his client is curtailing free speech.

Speech First filed the lawsuit last year and the case was heard by Senior U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell who rejected Speech First’s arguments on the discriminatory-harassment policy. He also ruled the group did not have legal standing to challenge the bias-related incidents policy.

The appeals court overturned Presnell’s rejection of a preliminary injunction against UCF’s harassment policy and ordered the district court to consider the constitutionality of UCF’s bias response team.

In the 38-page opinion, Judge Kevin Newsom wrote that the UCF policy “objectively chills speech because its operation would cause a reasonable student to fear expressing potentially unpopular beliefs.” Newsom added (with agreement from Judges Stanley Marcus and Richard Story) that “Given the discriminatory-harassment policy’s astonishing breadth — and slipperiness — we think it clear that a reasonable student could fear that his speech would get him crossways with the university, and that he’d be better off just keeping his mouth shut.”

The court noted that terms used in the policies defy clear meaning as triggers for violations:

“No reasonable college student wants to run the risk of being accused of ‘offensive,’ ‘hostile,’ ‘negative,’ or ‘harmful’ conduct — let alone hate or bias. Nor would the average college student want to run the risk that the university will ‘track’ her, ‘monitor’ her, or mount a ‘comprehensive response’ against her.”

However, it was the court’s reliance on appellate counsel that was so notable in this case. What was notable was that it was defense counsel being cited by the court:

“To take just one example, what does it mean for one student’s speech to ‘unreasonably . . . alter[]’ another student’s educational experience? Both terms—’unreasonably’ and ‘alter[]’—are pretty amorphous, their application would likely vary from one student to another, and the University’s totality-of-known-circumstances approach to determining whether particular speech crosses the line only makes matters worse. To be clear, these concerns aren’t speculative. At oral argument, we asked the University’s lawyer a series of questions about whether particular statements would violate the discriminatory-harassment policy: (1) ‘abortion is immoral’; (2) ‘unbridled open immigration is a danger to America on a variety of levels’; and (3) ‘the Palestinian movement is antisemitic.’ To his considerable credit—but to the policy’s considerable discredit—he candidly acknowledged that while ‘it d[id] not sound to [him]’ like the speech would be proscribed under the policy, he couldn’t say for sure because ‘the university will consider all the facts and circumstances there’ and because he couldn’t ‘prejudge everything.’ Oral Arg. at 28:43–33:55. If UCF’s own attorney—as one intimately familiar with the University’s speech policies—can’t tell whether a particular statement would violate the policy, it seems eminently fair to conclude that the school’s students can’t either.”

Here is the decision: Speech First v. Cartwright

EU Puts Elon Musk On Notice Over Free Speech Plans For Twitter – Nwo Report


EU commissioner Thierry Breton told the Financial Times that Musk must follow rules on moderating illegal and harmful content online, since words have been elevated to ‘sticks & stones’ when it comes to the dangers of modern life.