Mediaboss Marketing

Republicansare launching a full-court press against the congressional Democrats wide rangingelectionand campaign finance reform bill.

"Its political corruption," the announcer charges in a new commercial that is part ofa major ad blitzby the National Republican Senatorial Committee starting Monday. "Stop the grab. Stop the fraud."

SCHUMER, MCCONNELL, SPAR OVER DEMOCRATS ELECTION BILL DURING RARE COMMITTEE SHOWDOWN

The Senate GOP reelection arm is spending seven figures to run the spots in Arizona, Georgia, Nevadaand New Hampshire, four states they hope to flip from blue to red in the 2022 midterms, when Republicans will aim to win back the majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

In a memo and video released on Monday, NRSC chair Sen. Rick Scott spotlighted a new poll commissioned by the committee to target the measure.

"The bills disguised as election reform, but its really just a dishonest Democrat power grab. You also have to know if you oppose the Democrat power grab, Democrats will call you a racist. The good news is this, the American people dont buy that and theyre on our side," Scott argued.

The bill formally known as the "For the People Act," or as H.R.1 in the House and S.1 in the Senate passed the Democratic-controlled House earlier this month along party lines.

While it now faces an uncertain future in the equally divided Senate, where Democrats in the chamber say it will be a top priority when the Senate session resumes in early April,it is unifying Republicans in opposition.

Longtime Republican operative and strategist Colin Reed said ofthe measure: "To me, feels like a messaging bill that the Democrats are putting forward that doesnt really have a chance at becoming law. But it gives Republicans something to rally around and unite and move the conversation forward into the future."

IOWA'S GOP GOV. TIES HOUSE ELECTION SHOWDOWN TO DEMOCRATS' PUSH FOR MASSIVE REFORM BILL

Congressional Republicans have been railing against the legislation for weeks. And GOP leaders outside of Washington are also taking aim. Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa warned that "state election law would be wiped away" if the Democrats bill becomes law. And Mike Pompeo, secretary of state during the Trump administration and a potential 2024 GOP presidential hopeful, charged in Iowa on Friday that the measure is a "raw power grab."

Voters deliver their ballot to a polling station, Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2020, in Tempe, Ariz. (AP Photo/Matt York)

The NRSC isnt alone in spending big bucks to target the bill.

Heritage Action for America, the nonprofit advocacy wing of the influential conservative think tank, recently launched a $10 million push that includes messaging to block what it calls "federal overreach" in the legislation.

Conservative groups such as the Susan B. Anthony List, the American Principles Project, the Tea Party Patriots, as well as Republican Attorney Generals Association, have also ignited efforts to take aim at the bill.

Reed, a Republican presidential and Senate campaign veteran, said the Democrats bill gives Republicans "a chance to find some targets that are juicy to the base and will allow them to be on offense as opposed to reacting to news of the day. They can lay the blame for all the atrocious things in H.R.1 atBiden, Pelosi, andSchumers feet and try to make next year a referendum on them as opposed to having to project a vision of their own."

Democrats highlight that their bill would "improve access to the ballot box" by creating automatic voter registration across the countryand by ensuring that individuals who have completed felony sentences have their full voting rights restored. The bill wouldalso expand early voting and enhance absentee voting by simplifying voting by mail. There was a surge in absentee voting during last years primaries and general election due to health concerns of in-person voting at polling stations amid the coronavirus pandemic.

20 STATE AGS DENOUNCE DEMOCRATS HR1 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The measure also commits Congress to deliver "full congressional voting rights and self-government for the residents of the District of Columbia, which only statehood can provide," prohibits voter roll purges and aims to end "partisan gerrymandering" of congressional districts.

If passed into law, the bill would also enhance federal support for voting system security, increase oversight of election system vendors, upgrade online political ad disclosure and require all organizations involved in political activity to disclose their large donors, create a multiple matching system for small-dollar donations, which would be paid for by a new surcharge on "corporate law breakers and wealthy tax cheats," tighten rules on super PACs, and beef up the enforcement powers of the Federal Election Commission.

Republicans slam the measuresaying it would lead to a federal government takeover of elections andaccuse Democrats of trying to change election rules to benefit themselves. But Democrats say the measure is needed to combat the push by GOP lawmakers in some states where Republicans control the governors office and the legislature to pass bills that would tighten voting laws, which Democrats characterize as voter suppression.

A controversial bill that tightens voting access rules was signed into law on Thursday by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia.

Earlier this month in Iowa, Reynolds signed into law a bill that shortens the early voting period from 29 to 20 days and requires that most absentee ballots be received, rather than just postmarked, by Election Day.

The current push by Republicans state lawmakers to beef up what they call election integrity was ignited by then-President Trumps repeated claims ahead of last Novembers election that the loosening of restrictions on voting by mail would lead to "massive voter fraud" and "rigged" elections.

After his defeat to President Biden, Trump falsely said that the election was "stolen" as he unsuccessfully tried to upend Bidens victory. Recent polling indicates that election integrity remains a major concern for Republican voters.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Reed, the GOP strategist, notedthat the issues of election integrity and voter suppression excite both sides.

"Its a juicy thing to both bases. Democrats will argue that Republicans are disenfranchising voters and Republicans will argue that Democrats are putting in place polices that will make it impossible for them to ever win an election again," Reed said. "Base messaging is motivated by fear and both of those have a way of spinning up the supporters in each camp into action and unification."

Follow this link:
S1 slammed as 'political corruption' as Republicans go all-in on attacking Dems' election reform bill - Fox News

The Texas Senate early Thursday approved a bill that would prohibit social media companies with at least 100 million monthly users from blocking, banning, demonetizing or discriminating against a user based on their viewpoint or their location within Texas.

Senate Bill 12, sponsored by Republican state Sen. Bryan Hughes of Mineola, was approved after 2 a.m. Thursday. The measure, which would apply to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, among others, would also require the companies to disclose their content moderation policies, publish regular reports about the content they remove and create an appeals process for user content that has been taken down.

The Texas attorney general would be allowed to file suit against any company that violates a provision of the bill. If upheld in court, the attorney general could recoup "reasonable" attorney's fees and investigative costs.

Experts have raised doubts about the legality of the measure. Hughes acknowledged that, if signed into law, SB 12 would almost certainly be challenged in court. He repeatedly referred to social media platforms as common carriers, though they have never been classified as such by law or in the court system. Common carriers, such as phone companies and cable providers, are private or public companies that transport goods or people and are barred by government regulators from discriminating against customers.

Even though theyre private actors, because they are common carriers, because they chose to enter this business and offer their services, then they are bound by certain rules, Hughes said.

Facebook and Google, which owns YouTube, did not respond to requests for comment. In remarks before Congress last week, company executives denied removing content or blocking users based on their viewpoints.

A Twitter spokesperson declined to comment specifically on SB 12, but said in a statement that the platform enforces "the Twitter Rules judiciously and impartially for everyone on our service regardless of ideology or political affiliation and our policies help us to protect the diversity and health of the public conversation."

The bill heads to the House, where two identical bills have been filed but so far have not moved forward in the State Affairs Committee.

During Tuesdays debate on the bill, state Sen. Roland Gutierrez, D-San Antonio, pointed out that while Facebook and Twitter would be included under the measure, websites such as Parler and Gab, which are popular among conservatives, would be left out because they have fewer than 100 million monthly users. He proposed an amendment that would have lowered the threshold to 25 million monthly users, but it was voted down by a vote of 21-10.

Hughes stressed that the measure seeks to protect all viewpoints. But at a press conference earlier this month, Gov. Greg Abbott announced his support for the measure and chided social media companies for leading a dangerous movement to silence conservative ideas [and] religious beliefs.

The rhetoric about silencing conservatives ramped up following the 2020 election, when platforms including Facebook and Twitter removed former President Donald Trumps account for inciting violence during the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection. Prior to that, the platforms attached warnings to posts by Trump and other conservatives who were, without evidence, sowing doubt on the legitimacy of the election.

Republican politicians have long targeted technology giants accusing them of an anti-conservative bias and for silencing free speech, even though the actions to ban members were often in response to credible evidence that communications were inciting violence. A February report by researchers at New York University found that there are no credible studies showing that Twitter removes tweets for ideological reasons.

In a congressional hearing last October, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told lawmakers that Democrats often say that we dont remove enough content, and Republicans often say we remove too much.

The fact that both sides criticize us doesnt mean that were getting this right, but it does mean there are real disagreements about where the limits of online speech should be, he said.

Twitter in January purged more than 70,000 accounts linked to the dangerous conspiracy theorist group QAnon for the movements connection to the U.S. Capitol attack.

Hughes in 2019 filed a similar measure that won Senate approval, but it ultimately died in committee in the Texas House.

Read more here:
Texas Senate approves social media "censorship" bill - The Texas Tribune

Do social media and big tech companies have too much power when it comes to blocking political candidates from using their platforms? According to abill backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, the answer to that question is "yes," a position that has prompted no small amount of debate among state lawmakers.

If passed, the bill would impose a daily $100,000 fine on social media platforms for de-platforming statewide candidates and a daily $10,000 fine for all other Florida candidates.

The bill also attempts to provide equal access for news organizations and political candidates to reach users free from manipulation by algorithms and give users the power to opt out of algorithms.

House Speaker Chris Sprowls, a supporter of the legislation, also spoke out about the bill during the news conference, saying how it would let Florida take back the virtual public square as a place where information and ideas can flow freely.

However, not all House members agree.

Were going to pass something that we have very strong reason to think is unconstitutional, Rep. Joe Geller, D-Aventura, said during a House Appropriations Committee hearing. Ultimately, were probably going to lose, and the people who are going to pay are really not us sitting at these tables; its going to be the taxpayers.

The main concern if the bill is passed is that it could infringe on companies right to free speech by regulating the content they publish, possibly violating the First Amendment.

However, the bills primary sponsor, Commerce Committee Chair Blaise Ingoglia, says that the bill would do more good than harm.

The bill, which the House Appropriations Committee cleared by a 19-8 vote, is now being reviewed by the House Judiciary Committee.

Never miss a story with the daily Govtech Today Newsletter.

Subscribe

Original post:
Florida Big Tech Censorship Bill Takes Another Step Forward - Government Technology

Rose McGowan is accusing Twitter of trying to censor her after the social media giant suspended her account for what it said was a violation of itsnon-consensual nudity policy in a tweet slamming Vice President Harris and former President Clinton,Fox New reports.

"What are you so afraid of Jack Dorsey, a little freedom of speech?" McGowan said a video response shared by RT.com Tuesday in which she calls out the Twitter CEO for her suspension from his social media platform. "I know Twitter is trying to silence me, and I know a lot of powerful Democrats are behind it."

Activist, author, and artist Rose McGowan has had her Twitter account suspended, over a tweet she posted about Jeffrey Epstein and President Bill ClintonWilliam (Bill) Jefferson ClintonNew York Democrat calls on White House to reverse 'old school' marijuana policy while admitting own past use Bill Clinton on Georgia's new voting restrictions: 'An attack on our democracy' Harris hails child tax credit during interview with Bill Clinton MORE pic.twitter.com/V2NmM9ZQld

The activist andactor had taken to Twitter to condemn Harris prior to the vice president's appearance atthe Clinton Global Initiative summit for a speaking engagement focused on women empowerment last week.Clinton, she pointed out, has been accused of sexual misconduct.

"This is obscene@KamalaHarris," McGowan tweeted at Harrison March 25, a day before the event, according to Fox News. "You speaking with Bill Clinton about empowering women & girls is disgusting. Have you no soul? Have you no ethics? Ask him about being on an island of human trafficking victims 27 times. You are showing us exactly who you are."

The tweet referenced a claim from former Clinton confidant Doug Band, whoalleged in December that he had visited Jeffrey Epstein's "pedophile" island in 2003. Clinton has denied ever stepping foot on the island.

McGowan was suspended from Twitter over themessage, which featured a realistic piece of artwork byBritish artist Alison Jackson depictingClinton receiving a massage from an unknown woman.The social media site flagged the tweet as being a violation of itsnon-consensual nudity policy, Fox New reports.

"Let me speak," McGowan concluded her video retort. "I am more dangerous if you silence me."

McGowan is one of the women who accuseddisgracedHollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault.

Here is the original post:
Rose McGowan accuses Twitter of censorship over Clinton tweet | TheHill - The Hill

By Dom Serafini

The late U.S. president Ronald Reagan used to tell and retell a joke about an American bragging to a Russian about the fact that he could pay a visit to him at the White House, and banging his fists on his table, tell him, Mr. President I dont like the way youre running our country. The Russian answered that he too can go to the Kremlin and tell Mikhail Gorbachev, Mr. President, I dont like the way Reagan is running his country.

The point of the joke is that in Russia then and now there is no liberty, no democracy, and no freedom of speech.

Indeed, Americans and Europeans alike like to think that they live in states where freedom of the press and freedom of expression are observed. On the other hand, Russians, Chinese people, and Iranians, just to name a few, live under dictatorships, otherwise called authoritarian states, with no freedom of the press, of liberty, or of expression.

While people in democratic states think they enjoy free press, those in authoritarian states know that their media is controlled, and thus, those who can, tend to follow the media imported (mostly illegally) from democratic states, believing that it is fair and balanced. At least this is what happened years ago. Today, however, people in authoritarian states are starting to believe that even the so-called free press is biased, full of fake news, and most importantly, censored and full of propaganda (read advertising) that determines elections and public policies.

Trying to look impartially at various forms of censorship we can identify five forms of widely used censorship: State Censorship, Corporate Censorship, Social Censorship, Privacy Laws, and Libel Laws.

State Censorship is what is practiced in countries like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and the like. In these states, censorship takes different forms, like direct and indirect media ownership, and various strategies such as restricting news and conditioning news. It even extends to film, theater, and text messaging. In China, for example, a department of the Chinese Communist Party (one of the countrys multiple censorship organs) employs two million people to monitor and censor content.

In democracies, censorship takes different forms, but at all levels it begins with self-censorship and denying access, keeping in mind that, by definition, an editor cannot be impartial.

Then there is the so-called Corporate Censorship, where corporate owners of media control the news by selecting those who report it, by establishing an editorial line (e.g., progressive or conservative), and by limiting access to only those who reflect their values. Corporate Censorship tends to take guidance from governments, especially with regard to foreign policies. The most recent examples come from the Iraqi War, the Syrian War, and the bias towards authoritarian states. Corporate Censorship is a topic widely discussed in academia and explained in books such as Puerto Rican scholar Giannina Braschs United States of Banana. In addition, in the U.S., the First Amendment protects against censorship from the government, but does not protect against Corporate Censorship or from non-public outrages, like hate speech.

Social Censorship is now emerging in established democracies, which is enforced by the sarcastically called Political Correct Police Force, and complemented by advocates of Cancel Culture. Left-leaning influential groups have the power to fire people, embarrass noncompliant individuals, and discredit those who deviate from the sanctioned school of thought.

Additionally, in countries like Italy, for example, censorship is widely applied by threating libel suits, which could threaten the survival of small publications. Italy is also unique because most professional journalists are licensed by the state. Plus, like in authoritarian states, defamation is a criminal offense in Italy. (In the U.S., its a civil issue.)

In China, defamation is used to prosecute people for having slandered the people of China, by expressing views not in accordance with the government mandates.

Finally, democracies especially those in Western Europe have strict privacy laws, which tend to protect the rich and powerful, who have lots to hide from the public.

Illustration by Bill Kerr licensed underCC BY-SA 2.0.

Please follow and like us:

Read more:
The Age of Censorship VideoAge International - videoageinternational.net