Mediaboss Marketing

In the wake of Facebook banning right-wing radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, President Trump on Saturday questioned why mainstream news outlets critical of his administration are permitted to operate on social networking services like Twitter and Facebook.

Why is @nytimes, @washingtonpost, @CNN, @MSNBC allowed to be on Twitter & Facebook, Mr. Trump tweeted. Much of what they do is FAKE NEWS!

Mr. Trumps complaint came on the heels of Facebook recently banning a handful of accounts associated with high-profile users considered in violation of the companys policies prohibiting dangerous individuals and organizations, including several affiliated with the unabashedly pro-Trump Infowars website operated by right-wing media personality Alex Jones.

I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms, Mr. Trump tweeted Friday evening. This is the United States of America and we have whats known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!

Mr. Trump subsequently shared Infowars content from his Twitter account Saturday morning, including a video filmed by Infowars during a 2018 Trump rally and two tweets from Infowars editor Paul Joseph Watson, whose Facebook account was among several purged from the social network this week.

Twitter declined to comment when asked by The Washington Times about Mr. Trumps tweets. Representatives for Facebook did not immediately return a similar inquiry.

Facebook accounts belonging to Infowars, Mr. Jones and Mr. Watson were all removed the platform Thursday, in addition to accounts belonging to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan; Paul Nehlen, a far-right politician; former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos and activist and self-described investigative journalist Laura Loomer.

Weve always banned individuals or organizations that promote or engage in violence and hate, regardless of ideology, said a Facebook spokesperson. The process for evaluating potential violators is extensive and it is what led us to our decision to remove these accounts today.

Speaking to The Washington Times, Mr. Jones said that the president has been way behind the curve on combatting social media censorship and called it one of his biggest failings

This is extremely dangerous, said Mr. Jones. We are having our First Amendment totally destroyed.

If people dont have the instinct to stand up then everybody is going to get what they deserve. Everybody. This is about the general public having their rights taken, Mr. Jones said in an interview. Ive been targeted because Im a flamboyant person they can take out of context hoping nobody stands up for me, and when nobody stands up for me then the dominoes start falling.

Go here to read the rest:
Trump 'monitoring and watching' social media censorship ...

One thing weve learned over the past three years of ever-tightening social media censorship is that where one tech giant goes, the others often follow.

Just look at the mass-ban of Infowars that occurred last September. At the urging of CNN and others, one Silicon Valley company after another dropped the controversial independent media outlet from their platforms. First Apple, then Facebook, then Spotify, then YouTube, then Twitter most of these in a 48-hour window.

Its a tech censorship domino effect. Remember that these companies are beset by constant pressure from left-wing advocacy organizations, from the mainstream media, and from their own far-left employees to censor and blacklist the right. When one company buckles, those forces have the ammunition they need to force other companies to buckle too.

Apple did something! Why arent we doing something too?

Thats probably how the conversation went among Facebook employees in the window between Apples ban of Infowars and Facebooks. Thus the domino effect began.

This time its Facebook raising the bar of censorship, with its introduction of politically motivated link-banning. Not only have they banned Paul Joseph Watson and Alex Jones personal account, but theyve also promised to delete any links to Infowars that appear on the platform, and ban anyone who tries to post them too often.

This is a formula not just for banning high-profile political targets, but masses of their supporters as well. Its a tool for culling the anti-establishment grassroots.

The second thing Facebook has done is set a public precedent for targeting individuals not just for alleged violations of the terms of service on their part, but also on the basis of their connections to banned figures.

According tothe Verge, a Facebook representative explained that one factor in yesterdays bans was the fact that the banned individuals had appeared in videos or praised people like Gavin McInnes and Tommy Robinson, who have previously been banned by the platform.

In other words, its not just posting links. If you praise the wrong person, pose for a selfie with them, or worse appear in a video with them you could be banned too.

This is censorship on a new scale, censorship Facebook-style. The platforms slogan was once connect the world now its using its knowledge of those connections to censor not just individuals, but entire social networks and movements.

The only question is, will other companies now follow suit? Will independent personalities on YouTube be banned for interviewing the wrong person? If you invite Alex Jones on your Periscope channel, will that be banned too? What about Amazon, Discord, Spotify? Game streaming platform Twitch is already ahead of the curve, having a person banned from Twitch on your Twitch stream can result in your own banning.

Remember, this is far-left Silicon Valley were talking about. You can practically hear the employees of those companies, berating their upper management.

Facebook took a stand against hate speech! Why arent we?

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow himon Twitter,Gab.aiandadd him on Facebook.Email tips and suggestions toallumbokhari@protonmail.com.

Read more:
Bokhari: Beware the Big Tech Censorship Domino Effect ...

Randall Kennedy is the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.

In HATE: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship (Oxford University Press), the constitutional scholar Nadine Strossen recalls the first time she was subjected to an anti-Semitic slur. Although she was a well-educated young adult when targeted, she was nonetheless stunned into silence. That did not last long. Strossen later became a leading champion of freedom of expression. She has served as president of the American Civil Liberties Union (1991 to 2008) and has persistently propounded the key tenet of engaged pluralism More speech! against the reflexive upshot of fear and disgust Ban it! Now she has come forward with a splendid, accessible, instructive book that could not be more timely.

Strossen argues that, except in tightly defined circumstances, it is a mistake to attempt to deploy the coercive force of the government to eliminate so-called hate speech speech that expresses hostility, detestation, contempt, or any related animus against individuals or groups. She accepts governmental suppression of this category of speech in an emergency, when there is no opportunity for deliberation or counter-speech, or when a speaker is directly threatening or harassing an individual. She resists suppression, however, when the basis for it is a conclusion that the type of speech in question is too hurtful, too vicious, or too loathsome to allow.

She acknowledges, quoting the Supreme Court, that speech is powerful, that it can stir people to action and inflict great pain. She concedes that malevolent expression can scald sensibilities and intimidate the vulnerable. She insists, however, that the cure of censorship is worse than the disease of hate speech. Even worse than speechs potential power to harm individuals and society, she maintains, is governments potential power to do likewise, by enforcing hate speech laws. Predictably, this elastic power will be used to silence dissenting ideas, unpopular speakers, and disempowered groups.

Continue reading here:
Is the Cure of Censorship Better than the Disease of Hate ...

Midway through the most recent episode of The Good Fight, a legal drama that deals with Trump-era politics, a scene depicting a confrontation between lawyers and their clients abruptly stops. Shortly after, for about eight seconds, a black screen flashes the words, CBS HAS CENSORED THIS CONTENT.

Some viewers saw the message as satire, just part of the shows irreverent approach to current events, Michelle King, one of the showrunners, said in an interview on Tuesday.

Others, Ms. King said, took it as the producers had intended: literally.

The show, which runs on the CBS All Access streaming channel, and is a spinoff of The Good Wife, often breaks from its plot for an animated musical short that digs into controversial political issues of the day with an explanatory style similar to Schoolhouse Rock! A theme of last Thursdays episode was American companies that want to do business in China and the pressures they face to appease Chinese government censors. An animated short was created on that same theme.

But the short was pulled from the show at the request of CBS about two weeks before it was scheduled to stream, said Ms. King, who created the show with her husband, Robert King.

Jonathan Coulton, the songwriter who makes the shorts, said in an interview that this particular video started with the fact that The Good Wife had been banned in China, most likely because of an episode that showed a Chinese dissident character being tortured. (The spinoff The Good Fight has not been banned.)

Mr. Coulton said the animated short included a host of references to topics that have been censored on the internet in China. Those include Falun Gong, a spiritual movement that is repressed by the Chinese government; Tiananmen Square, a reference to the violent crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in 1989; Winnie-the-Pooh, to whom Chinas president, Xi Jinping, is often compared; and the letter N, used by critics of the recent change to the Chinese Constitution that lets Mr. Xi stay in power indefinitely.

It was a little bit like poking the bear, Mr. Coulton said. They had gotten approval all along, and at the last minute, a couple of weeks before, they got word that they couldnt put it in the show.

In a statement, CBS All Access said: We had concerns with some subject matter in the episodes animated short. This is the creative solution that we agreed upon with the producers. A spokeswoman declined to comment further.

The New Yorker first reported the details of CBSs decision to censor the animated short.

Ms. King said she and her husband were taken aback by what they called CBSs highly unusual decision, because of how much controversial material the network normally allows in the show and its musical shorts. The shorts have previously delivered tutorials on neo-Nazi frog memes, Russian troll farms and how Congress could impeach President Trump.

Ms. King said that she and her husband initially told CBS that they would quit the show if the song was pulled but that they eventually agreed on inserting a message saying that the company had censored it.

We love the show, and we love the cast, she said, One doesnt want to walk away from something that is so creatively fulfilling.

Mr. Coulton said that he was told that CBS had concerns for the safety of its employees in China if the segment were included. CBS also has a Chinese audience, and when releasing content that is critical of China, American entertainment companies often have to weigh the risk of having their shows or movies blocked in the country.

Just before the censorship message, in fact, the shows characters discuss a fictional tech companys decision to appease Chinese censors. The company, called ChumHum, is engaged in a secret project to build a customized search engine for China. (Google was said last year to be considering such a product.)

Customized? As in it allows China to censor its content? one of the characters says.

A ChumHum executive responds: We dont like to call it censoring. It just obeys the laws of the land. Seconds afterward, the show cut to its brief censored message.

Mr. Coulton said he bore no ill will toward CBS, understanding that as a large multinational corporation, it had some tough choices to make. Still, the whole situation is the definition of irony, he said.

The song ends with me saying, I hope this song is banned in China, Mr. Coulton said. Now itll never get the chance.

See original here:
CBS Censors a Good Fight Segment. Its Topic Was Chinese ...

BEIJING (AP) For three years, Chen Chun published articles on his public WeChat account touching on politics, philosophy and current affairs subjects that are often censored on Chinese social media.

More recently, the writer in southern China has focused on the countrys growing #MeToo movement. He drew attention to several sexual assault cases, and collected money for victims families.

Yet it was only after Chen advocated support for Jingyao Liu, a woman who accused online shopping giant JD.com founder Richard Liu of rape in Minnesota, that his account was permanently shut down.

WeChat informed Chen this week that his account could no longer be used because it shared an online petition in support of Jingyao Liu which violated regulations. Five other accounts that were circulating the petition with the hashtag #HereForJingyao have also been disabled in recent days.

This is a pretty big case, Chen told The Associated Press. Its quite meaningful because in China we havent yet had a case that reaches this level.

Billionaire Richard Liu is the most high-profile Chinese businessperson to be publicly accused of sexual assault. University of Minnesota student Jingyao Liu alleges in a lawsuit filed in Minneapolis last month that the 46-year-old internet tycoon forced himself upon her in his vehicle and later raped her at her apartment last summer.

The two Lius are not related. Richard Liu is also known by his Chinese name, Liu Qiangdong.

Richard Liu was initially arrested on suspicion of felony rape, but prosecutors announced in December that he would not face criminal charges because the case had profound evidentiary problems. His defense attorneys said at the time that his arrest was based on a false claim.

Jingyao Liu was 21 years old when the alleged attack took place, according to the lawsuit. The Associated Press does not generally name alleged victims of sexual assault without their consent, but the law firm representing her said she agreed to be named.

She is seeking damages of more than $50,000.

The case has stirred intense online debate, as Chinas #MeToo movement grapples with the first allegation against a prominent business leader. Advocacy for sexual assault victims has gained considerable traction despite persistent censorship, but most of those publicly accused have been university professors.

This case is different because it involves a business mogul, said Chen, who believes that Richard Lius financial might has allowed him to press a strong defense in the court of public opinion an option not available to most who have been accused of sexual assault in China. JD.com is Chinas biggest online direct retailer, and his fortune is estimated at $7.5 billion.

Supporters of both parties have waged aggressive online public relations campaigns claiming to show the truth of what happened the night of the alleged rape.

Last Monday, two edited surveillance videos of Richard Liu and Jingyao Liu were posted on Chinas Twitter-like Weibo platform by a recently created anonymous account. The videos show the two at a group dinner, in an elevator and walking arm-in-arm that night.

An attorney for Richard Liu, who showed the AP full, unedited surveillance videos from a restaurant and apartment complex, said they provide a different account of what transpired.

The way it gets described sounds so much more nefarious than it actually is, said attorney Jill Brisbois. Shes step-in-step with him at every point. While the woman has alleged she was impaired and coerced to drink, she appears to be walking without assistance and linking her arm with the businessmans.

Chen said Jingyao Liu also sent him and other supporters the full surveillance videos, which they edited themselves and posted online along with their own interpretations in support of the woman.

It is not clear who is behind the account that first posted the videos. The account, called Minnesota Events, said it was exposing Jingyao Lius intimate manner in appearing to invite Richard Liu inside her apartment. The account user did not respond to requests for comment.

After the first surveillance videos were posted, some online commentators attacked Jingyao Liu, saying they were evidence she had been a willing participant. In response, other Weibo users rallied around the hashtag #ImNotaPerfectVictimEither a rebuke of what they said were unrealistic standards imposed on sexual assault victims.

The law firm representing Jingyao Liu said the videos are consistent with what she told law enforcement officials and alleged in her lawsuit. The videos dont show what happened in the apartment or in the car, which are the core of her allegations.

An incomplete videotape and the silencing of WeChat supporters will not stop a Minnesota jury from hearing the truth, said Wil Florin, an attorney for the accuser.

___

Associated Press researcher Shanshan Wang in Beijing and writer Amy Forliti in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

Original post:
Supporters of Chinese billionaires accuser decry censorship