Tag Archives: free speech

Manipulated Media

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that Carpe Donktum, a President Donald Trump supporter, put together a satirical video.

The video…begins with dramatic music showing a black toddler running away from a white toddler with a “breaking news” graphic that reads “Terrified toddler runs away from racist baby” with the CNN logo next to it. That headline then changed to “Racist baby probably a Trump supporter.”
Then, a graphic that shows “what actually happened” shows the two toddlers running towards each other and hugging with excitement to the tune the “Close to You” cover by Harry Connick Jr.
“America is not the problem… fake news is,” the video tells viewers. “If you see something, say something. Only you can prevent fake news dumpster fires.”

Never mind that

The footage came from a viral Facebook video shared in 2019 featuring real-life New York pals Maxwell and Finnegan, who were 26 and 27 months old respectively at the time.

Never mind that Jack Dorsey and his censoring Twitter twitterers know this full well.

Never mind that anyone with two neurons to bump together into a ganglion could recognize the video as satire. However, @Jack and his Twitter censors insist on insulting tens of millions of Americans by slapping their “Manipulated Media” flag on it after Trump pinned it in his Twitter feed.

Satire isn’t manipulated media. @jack, with his decision to censor a satirical posting, is manipulating media.

Some Speech Rights are More Equal than Others

Posted on by
Reply

A college newspaper, following in the footsteps of the tabloid New York Times, has fired a columnist for not complying with the paper’s, or its University’s, thoughtcrime avoidance requirements.

Syracuse University student Adrianna San Marco was fired from her gig as a columnist at a local paper, The Daily Orange, when she dismissed the notion of “institutional racism” in an opinion piece for a separate, conservative website.

And she wasn’t even writing for the ex-employing paper; her piece was published by LifeZette. Here’s Daily Orange Editor-in-Chief Casey Darnell:

We aren’t afraid of controversial views, but we have a responsibility to avoid promoting harmful ones. We don’t censor conservative columnists[.]

Not afraid? Yet he and his organization censored speech. If he doesn’t understand that, his journalism professors have failed him badly. If he doesn’t understand that suppressing speech is precisely the promotion of harm then Syracuse has failed him badly. His parents should demand their money back.

Syracuse University did not respond to a request for comment.

Of course not.

Free Speech for Me

Posted on by
Reply

…but not for thee.

‘Course, we’re all perfectly free to speak approved messages. This is demonstrated by Facebook’s overt, deliberate censorship of a political ad. Days after Mark Zuckerberg so piously said his company would not censor political ads (even though he considered all other speech of which he disapproved freely censorable), he had his Facebook pull a Trump campaign ad because he didn’t like what it said.

The ad in alleged question was a call-out of the dangers of far-left radical organizations, including antifa. The ad used one of antifa’s several symbols as part of the call-out, but Zuckerberg decided that even using the symbol to symbolize hate groups was too “triggering.”

Not only is Zuckerberg committing censorship—and illustrating one of the points of the campaign ad—he’s insulting ordinary Americans, insisting we’re all too stupid to evaluate speech on our own: we have to be instructed by our Leftist betters.

A carefully anonymous Facebook spokesman had this:

We removed these posts and ads for violating our policy against organized hate…. Our policy prohibits using a banned hate group’s symbol to identify political prisoners without the context that condemns or discusses the symbol.

The only hate in this incident is Zuckerberg’s and his Facebook’s organized contempt for Americans, claiming as this Anonymous One does, that ordinary Americans are too stupid to understand the plain context of a political ad taken in its entirety.

Bigotry of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

Within hours of each other, these happened.

A Philadelphia family court supervisor was fired after a video posted to Facebook shows him tearing down signs in support of Black Lives Matter.

Because it’s entirely appropriate to support a racist organization that prioritizes some black lives above all other lives, including other black lives. BLM doesn’t even give a rat’s patootie about all the black babies whose lives are aborted in the womb. But it’s forbidden to presume to criticize such a mob of thugs.

This, from a Progressive-Democrat Congressman:

Representative Sean Patrick Maloney (D, NY) accused conservatives of using the “bogus” term “religious liberty” in order to hide their desire to discriminate.

Because protecting—I’ll say it—religious liberty of individual Americans is dishonest, but trashing the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment of our Constitution is just fine.

This is what we can expect, in spades, with a Progressive-Democratic Party administration ruling over us.

Censoring the Media

Posted on by
Reply

The censors have expanded their operation from the Facebooks, Alphabets, Twitters of our nation to our newsroom simulacra. Daniel Henninger noted the latest examples of the invasion:

In the past week, the editorial page editor of the New York Times, the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the editors of Bon Appétit magazine and the young women’s website Refinery 29 have been forced out by the staff and owners of their publications for offenses regarded as at odds with the beliefs of the current protests.

It’s more than mere censorship, though. It’s George Orwell and Franz Kafka in the press room collaborating on the press’ editorials.

The…news…outlets and the society gossip magazines cited by Henninger are canonical examples.

Henninger, though, is mistaken in one respect. These editors may have been forced out by the institutions’ owners, but staff played virtually no role—it was those editors’ abject cowardice in the face of opprobrium from their subordinates that assumed that character’s place in the tragedy.