In UK and Scotland, if you publish videos of the ongoing riots that are bringing these countries to the brink of civil war or you could be imprisoned. Above all, don't offer any opinions that the dramatic uptick in crime is related to open doors immigration policies.
From Michael Shellenberger at Public:
Ever since Kamala Harris became the Democratic Party’s presumed presidential nominee, the news media have worked to correct what it calls “misinformation” about her. Harris was not a “DEI hire,” they say, meaning Biden did not choose her for his Vice President because she’s a black woman. Harris was never border czar and wasn’t responsible for the quintupling of migrants crossing the border. And, no, say the media, Harris does not support a ban on fracking.
But in the media’s so-called fact-checking, they have spread misinformation. Biden explicitly said he would choose a black woman as Vice President after black Democratic activists and the media urged him to; as such, Harris was indeed a “DEI hire.” The media in 2021 widely referred to Harris as “border czar,” and her responsibilities were to deal with the so-called “root causes of migration.” And Harris had supported a ban on fracking when she ran in the Democratic primary in 2019 and only changed it a few days ago in response to Trump’s attacks.
Of course, there is plenty of misinformation about Harris. Biden never suggested that he lowered his standards to select a black female vice president. Harris never had the formal title of “border czar,” and she endorsed increasing border security recently. And the claims that Harris would shut down or even significantly reduce oil and gas production are contradicted by the expansion of oil and gas under Biden.
For those who still trust the corporate media even a little, Shellenberger offers this:
The media’s cover-up of Biden’s poor health was a major blow to its credibility, but not enough for it to change its ways. In its coverage of Kamala Harris, the media are now demanding that the public dismiss not just the video and other evidence but also their own memories.
Such gaslighting is a highly risky strategy for the news media, whose business rests upon public trust, which declined from 55% in the year 2000 to just 32% last year. . .
Why, then, do the media keep engaging in gaslighting, even though it undermines its credibility? The simple explanation is that they have to. They are captured by the Democratic Party and its nonprofit industrial complex, by their readers and revenue base, and by their own ideology and psychology.
All of this is a bad sign for America. The institutions we had trusted to accurately report on reality have become propaganda organs to the Party of the establishment and the deep state.
Often, when a conversation bogs down, I ask, "Where do you get your information." I can guess correctly almost every time. David Sachs is spot on here.
Excerpt from FIRE's recent Amicus Brief:
Never before has Congress taken the extraordinary step of effectively banning a communications platform, let alone one used by half the country. But this spring, Congress did exactly that when it passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. The law not only threatens TikTok’s U.S. operation but also exposes other online platforms to burdensome restrictions, including potential bans, if they have even tenuous connections to certain foreign countries.Recent development:
TikTok and its users quickly filed lawsuits in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which the act gives exclusive jurisdiction for challenges to the law. FIRE, joined by the Institute for Justice and the Reason Foundation, filed an amici curiae — “friend of the court” — brief supporting the plaintiffs. We argued the law violates the First Amendment in two ways.
First, it explicitly targets a specific communications platform — and the users who speak and access content on it — for the purpose of silencing opinions and ideas that lawmakers oppose. Such attempts to suppress disfavored views strike at the heart of the First Amendment.
Second, to the extent the law is motivated by national security concerns, Congress has failed to build a public record explaining why such a dramatic restriction of Americans’ right to speak and access information is necessary to address those concerns. (However, the court will not consider the brief for procedural reasons explained in the note following this article.)
