CNN's Propaganda Push to Demonize All Anonymous and Free Speech on the Web

Anthony Freda Art

Melissa Melton

Soon our governments will make sure that nothing we do online is ever private again (if any of it even is now).

First, watch just the first minute or so of the short clip below from CNN called “The Danger of Digital Terrorism” featuring Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a leading Jewish human rights organization.

A few snippets that stood out right away:

“…grappling with the issue in terms of hate speech…” 

“…there’s an issue when people can say things anonymously…” 

“The real crisis right now… when you have some of the other companies that allow for encrypted conversations between individuals uh, without, uh, the opportunity for law enforcement or intelligence to know how a communication goes…”

It's Official: Government Terrorists Hate Us For Our Free Speech

1984: France Will Counter Terrorist Attacks on Free Speech by… Attacking Free Speech? 

Melissa Melton

George Orwell wasn’t psychic; he was a time traveler, and we’re permanently falling down the rabbit hole of 1984.

If you live in France, your right to visit certain websites has just been terminated by the almighty government.

Why? Because terrorism.

According to a report by Glenn Greenwald, “What’s Scarier: Terrorism, or Governments Blocking Websites in Its Name?” the French Interior Ministry has now ordered that five websites be blocked by the government because they have officially been accused of promoting terrorism.

And this is just the beginning.

How the Government and Media Are Lying About Net Neutrality

By Lionel

It doesn't get any more axiomatic as to the necessity of the media to promote free-speech than the horrors that were manifested through the FCC's imposition of net neutrality that the mainstream media in particular have met with not so much as a raised Botoxed eyebrow. In case you missed it, the Internet and World Wide Web are now considered a utility under Title II of the Communication Act. The long-range implications of such are beyond mind boggling. This opens the door to licensure requirements for websites, decency regulation, fairness doctrine applications and worse. 


Visit LionelMedia.com

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.
Subscribe to GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING by Email

How bad is YouTube censorship?

By Adam Kokesh

YouTube is plenty awesome, but it's not the free speech platform that they want you to think it is. Kokesh says of YouTube: "War porn is okay if it is just glorifying American militarism" but how-to-buy-weed-online videos are "dangerous" and "harmful".


Visit TheFreedomLine.com

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.
Subscribe to GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING by Email

Judge Rules FBI Can Keep Occupy Assassination Plot Secret

By Conscious Resistance

Derrick Broze talks with Ben Swann on RT America regarding the apparent FBI plot to assassinate members of the activist group Occupy Houston. FOIA documents revealed that government agents were indeed plotting assassinations on peaceful US citizens.


Visit TheConsciousResistance.com

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.
Subscribe to GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING by Email

Unpacking France's Chilling Proposal to Hold Companies Accountable for Speech

Image Source

Jillian York

France’s misguided efforts to grapple with hate speech—which is already prohibited by French law—have been making headlines for years. In 2012, after an horrific attack on a Jewish school, then-president Nicolas Sarkozy proposed criminal penalties for anyone visiting websites that contain hate speech. An anti-terror law passed in December imposes greater penalties on those that “glorify terrorism” online (as opposed to offline), and allows websites engaging in the promotion of terrorism to be blocked with little oversight. And following the attack on Charlie Hebdo last month, Prime Minister Manuel Valls stated that “it will be necessary to take further measures” to address the threat of terrorism.

Despite such a history, the latest proposal to emerge from the country is shocking. At the World Economic Forum last week, President Francois Hollande called on corporations to “fight terror,”stating: 

Security is Not a Crime—Unless You're an Anarchist

Anthony Freda Art

Nadia Kayyali and Katitza Rodriguez

Riseup, a tech collective that provides security-minded communications to activists worldwide, sounded the alarm last month when a judge in Spain stated that the use of their email service is a practice, he believes, associated with terrorism.

Javier Gómez Bermúdez is a judge of Audiencia Nacional, a special high court in Spain that deals with serious crimes such as terrorism and genocide. According to press reports, he ordered arrest warrants that were carried out on December 16th against alleged members of an anarchist group. The arrests were part of Operation Pandora, a coordinated campaign against “anarchist activity” that has been called an attempt “to criminalize anarchist social movements.” The police seized books, cell phones, and computers, and arrested 11 activists. Few details are known about the situation, since the judge has declared the case secret.

At least one lawmaker, David Companyon, has speculated that the raids are a “stunt to garner support for Spain’s recently approved ‘gag law.’” The new law severely restricts demonstrations, setting huge fines for activities such as insulting police officers (€600), burning a national flag (up to €30,000), or demonstrating outside parliament buildings or key installations (up to €600,000). Considering the provisions of the law, it’s no surprise that many see the raid, conducted against a group with political ideas that the government appears to find threatening, as connected.

9/11 Truth Activist Surrenders to UK Police for "Non-violent Extremism" Following Cameron's Speech

In response to Cameron’s U.N. General Assembly remarks equating people who question 9/11 and 7/7 attacks in the US and UK and those who question the West’s policy towards the Middle East as just as dangerous as violent ISIS terrorists, a British truth activist and author hands himself in to UK’s counter terrorism police for the new crime of "non-violent extremism".

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.
Subscribe to GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING by Email

Firestorm Over Professor Steven Salaita's Sacking for Criticizing Israel

Image by: Carlos Latuff

Stephen Lendman

Criticizing Israel publicly entails huge risks. Becoming persona non grata in politics, the media, business and academia may follow. It's a career ender for most who try.

At most, short-term protests follow. They're usually or entirely local. Salaita's University of Illinois at Urban-Champaign (ULUC) sacking elevated public anger to a new level.

Thousands of scholars, students, colleagues, friends, Israeli critics and others rallied to his defense. They're steadfast. They continue. 

They want Salaita reinstated. They want him given full pay and benefits. They want damages paid for all he endured. He deserves it and much more.

Salaita broke weeks of silence. On September 9, he went public for the first time. 

He defended his noteworthy academic/scholarly bona fides. He did so eloquently and effectively. He criticized UIUC's academic lynching.

Proposed Anti-Terror Law in France Would Erode Civil Liberties

image source

Jillian York
Electronic Frontier Foundation

A proposed anti-terrorism law in France has freedom of expression advocates concerned. The bill, as our friends at La Quadrature du Net frame it, “institutes a permanent state of emergency on the Internet,” providing for harsher penalties for incitement or “glorification” of terrorism conducted online. Furthermore, the bill (in Article 9) allows for “the possibility for the administrative authority to require Internet service providers to block access to sites inciting or apologizing for terrorism” without distinguishing criteria or an authority to conduct the blocking.

Apart from specific concerns that the bill treats online speech as distinct from other speech, other provisions are just as problematic. For example, while Article 4 refers to “provocation aux actes de terrorisme” or “incitement to terrorism”—a clearly defined legal concept—it also refers to “apologie du terrorisme” or “apologizing” or “glorifying” terrorism, implying a condemnation of opinions alone rather than any overt acts, as Reporters Without Borders points out. La Quadrature du Net’s mini-site on the bill addresses further concerns (in French).

Cop Points Assault Rifle at Livestreamer: "I Will Fucking Kill You"

Dangerous gang activity reported once again in Ferguson, MO.

Livestream from Rebelutionary_Z

The scene was witnessed by Infowars reporter Joe Biggs who was also filming the incident. The clip shows a Ferguson officer with his gun raised pointing it directly at a citizen journalist who was live streaming at the time.

“Oh my God, gun raised, gun raised,” states the journalist, before Biggs remarks, “gun pointed.”

“My hands are up bro, my hands are up,” states the journalist before the cop responds, “I’m going to f***ing kill you, get back, get back!”

“You’re going to kill him?” asks another individual before the journalist asks, “did he just threaten to kill me?”

When the cop is asked for his name he responds, “go fuck yourself.”

Another clip shows the officer pointing his gun as protesters demand he lower the weapon. A second cop intervenes to make the officer lower his weapon as more irate demonstrators demand to know the officer’s name.

Ferguson Riot Cop Threatens to Shoot Livestreaming Journalist

Youtube

Source: Argus Radio livestream
Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.
Subscribe to GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING by Email

Dianne Feinstein: First Amendment Is A Special Privilege

Youtube

Sociopaths are running the government. Let's define who qualifies for the special privilege of free speech in the new media shield law.


Subscribe to E. Pratt Witney's Channel

Cf. First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Senator Dianne Feinstein
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Be the Change! Share this using the tools below.

Ben Swann: NSA Using Copyright Claims to Crush Free Speech?

BenSwann.com

Can a government agency block criticism by claiming copyright infringement? Sounds a bit ridiculous but it is happening. The NSA is effectively stopping one small business owner from criticism, claiming that by using its name he has infringed on their copyright.

Can they do that?

This is a Reality Check you won’t see anywhere else.



Full transcript and research links posted below...

DoD Blocks Millions of Computers From Viewing Alternative News

Eric Blair

After the initial surge of web traffic to alternative news websites following The Guardian breaking the NSA spying story, traffic has slowed considerably despite the continued interest in the NSA story as well as other alternative headlines.

This dramatic drop in traffic may be due to broad censorship by the Department of Defense on "millions of computers". 

What began as a rumor that the military brass was ordering soldiers not to view news about the whistleblower revelations that the NSA is spying on all Americans has swelled into a confirmed military-wide censorship campaign using a high-tech computer filtering system.

The US News and World Report is reporting that the DoD is blocking access to all articles related to the NSA scandal from all DoD computers. The filter reportedly effects millions of computers and potentially thousands of alternative news websites.

Shield Law Sponsor Not Sure Bloggers "Deserve" Free Speech Rights

"You can sit in your mother’s basement and chat away, I don't care," says Lindsey Graham (R-SC) but then asks if "they [bloggers] deserve First Amendment protection?" when it comes to classified information.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

J.P. Hicks

Who knew the speech of the media and bloggers wasn't already protected?

The U.S. senate is working on a media shield law that would protect the media against government retaliation for exposing sensitive information.

I thought the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights made it quite clear that all speech was already protected: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since the government has been on the rampage to punish whistleblowers who have exposed government crimes, perhaps additional clarity is needed. However, it seems that the politicians are using the media shield law to decide who gets free speech protection and who doesn't.

Obama's War on Free Expression

image source

Stephen Lendman

It's the most fundamental right. Without it all others are endangered. Obama's waging war to destroy it. He's done so throughout his tenure. 

He targeted AP. He did so unjustifiably. A previous article discussed it.

It was lawless intrusion. It intimidates journalists, potential whistleblowers, valued sources, and others. It warns them against challenging or disclosing information Washington wants kept secret. 

Obama's done it numerous times before. He's waging war on truth. He's targeted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined. Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are best known. Others faced similar abuse. 

Fox News reporter James Rosen is another target. Headlines just revealed it. Since around 2010, his phone records were monitored. They were obtained for a defined period. His emails were read. His personal movements were tracked.

At issue are fundamental constitutional rights. They've been eroding for years. Obama's waging war to destroy them altogether.

Attorneys File Civil Rights Lawsuit Over Wrongful Arrest, Detention in Psych Ward of Marine Brandon Raub

Rutherford Institute Attorneys File Civil Rights Lawsuit Over Wrongful Arrest, Detention in Psych Ward of Marine Brandon Raub Because of Facebook Posts
Activist Post

RICHMOND, Va. — Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a civil rights lawsuit against law enforcement and other government officials on behalf of Marine veteran Brandon Raub. Last August, he was arrested by a swarm of FBI, Secret Service agents and local police and forcibly detained in a psychiatric ward for a week because of controversial song lyrics and political views posted on his Facebook page.

The complaint, filed in federal court in Richmond, alleges that Raub’s seizure and detention were the result of a federal government program code-named “Operation Vigilant Eagle” that involves the systematic surveillance of military veterans who express views critical of the government. Institute attorneys allege that the attempt to label Raub as “mentally ill” and his involuntary commitment was a pretext designed to silence Raub’s speech critical of the government and that the defendants violated Raub’s rights under the First and Fourth Amendments.

Adam Kokesh is a Political Prisoner

Daisy Luther

The establishment has made no secret of the fact that they are not very impressed with Adam Kokesh’s planned Open Carry March on Washington DC this coming July 4.

But yesterday the situation devolved to a new low when Kokesh was arrested for….doing nothing.

The controversial talk-radio host of Adam Vs. the Man has been made a political prisoner.

A “political prisoner” is defined as:

A person who has been imprisoned for holding or advocating dissenting political views. source

Regardless of your personal beliefs on whether marijuana should be legalized, if you believe that freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, what happened at the May 18 “Smoke Down Prohibition” event in Philadelphia is a clear-cut violation of Kokesh’s rights. While other people there were actually breaking the law and smoking in an act of civil disobedience, Kokesh was not – he was simply speaking.

5 Lessons From the AP Spying Case and Other Leak Investigations

Cindy Cohn & Trevor Timm
EFF

The journalism world has been rightly outraged by theJustice Department dragging the Associated Press (and now a Fox News reporter) into one of its sprawling leak investigations. As we wrote last week, by obtaining the call records of twenty AP phone lines, “the Justice Department has struck a terrible blow against the freedom of the press and the ability of reporters to investigate and report the news."

But there are several other important lessons that this scandal can teach us besides how important free and uninhibited newsgathering is to the public’s right to know.

1. Weak Privacy Laws That Doomed AP Affect Everyone

The AP detailed in its letter to the Justice Department how its privacy was grossly invaded even though the government accessed only the call records of its reporters and not the content of their conversations. We completely agree. Unfortunately, this isn’t just a problem in the AP investigation. Law enforcement agencies routinely demand and receive this information about ordinary Americans over long periods of time without any court involvement whatsoever, much less a full warrant.