Connect with us

Politics

Net Neutrality Could Expand Biden’s Social Media Censorship To The Whole Internet

Published

on

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in one of the most important cases this term, one with critical implications for First Amendment free speech rights as society proceeds further into a world reliant upon internet service.

The controversy at the heart of Murthy v. Missouri is the Biden administration’s effort to pressure or “jawbone” social media to censor various opinions and public policy advocacy about the Covid pandemic that it found objectionable. 

The Biden administration naturally claims it was simply engaging in discourse with social media leaders to “inform and persuade,” but discovered correspondence included direct threats against the companies while White House officials openly and publicly threatened new “legal and regulatory measures” if the targeted groups failed to submit to its desires. 

Those revelations only confirm widespread suspicion that the left-leaning administrative state, favored and further empowered by the Biden administration, seeks to exploit its vast authority to suppress the speech of Americans who don’t share its preferred narratives or big-government goals.

The Supreme Court must now determine whether that White House pressure campaign crossed the line into unconstitutional intimidation and censorship, even without formal government prosecution or enforcement. Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Biden administration’s form of “informal censorship may sufficiently inhibit the circulation of publications to warrant injunctive relief,” even where the targeted groups are “free” to ignore its threats, because “people do not lightly disregard officers’ thinly veiled threats.” 

More Government Censorship with ‘Net Neutrality’

The case assumes additional importance amid the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) attempt to resurrect the

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Politics

Complaints Ask FEC, FCC To Investigate ABC For Breaking Broadcast And Donation Rules In Debate

Published

on

Remember that brazenly biased presidential debate on Sept. 10, hosted by ABC television? The one where ABC moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis “fact-checked” former President Donald Trump five times and Vice President Kamala Harris, not at all?  The one advertised as a legitimate debate that felt more like a 90-minute campaign commercial for Harris?

The Center for American Rights has filed complaints with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Elections Commission (FEC), asking these agencies to hold ABC and its local affiliate accountable on two matters: an alleged campaign donation violation, and a concern about its television broadcast license.  

Unlike print media, broadcast airwaves belong to the public. While anyone can find some paper, start their own newsletter, and say whatever they want, there is a finite number of airwaves across the broadcast spectrum, so they belong to everyone. That is why the FCC licenses segments of the airwaves to broadcasters with the condition that they must use a certain amount of their broadcast time to serve the public.

“One of the obligations of stewarding the airwaves in the public interest is that debates must be fair and impartial, and when you fail at that, there must be accountability from the regulator,” Daniel Suhr, attorney at the Center for America Rights, told The Federalist in a phone interview. “The media have been pushing the boundaries for decades and what ABC did was further than what anyone had done previously.”

Public Reprimand

The Center for American Rights

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Are Dems Slow-Walking Hurricane Relief To Suppress An Election-Deciding Number Of GOP Voters?

Published

on

Early voting in North Carolina starts in just days, and Appalachian voters in the western, deep-red stronghold of the state are still desperate for help with basic necessities after destruction wrought by Hurricane Helene. A slow-rolled disaster relief response from federal and state government agencies has many wondering if the Democrats in charge are trying to suppress the votes of the predominantly Trump-supporting region.

“As rescuing survivors and repairing damage continues in North Carolina, the alarming lack of state-level adjustment regarding the conduct of this year’s election has begun to appear intentional on the part of Democrat Governor Cooper and his allies,” a press release from the Election Transparency Initiative, run by former acting deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli, stated.

The vast majority of the 28 counties and tribal areas included in the emergency declaration are Republican strongholds, and the voters there can make or break a win for former President Donald Trump in the tight swing state he only carried by about 75,000 votes in 2020.

According to an analysis by The Federalist, 604,119 voters in the emergency declaration region cast their ballots for Trump in 2020, while 356,902 chose President Joe Biden. That 247,217-vote difference is more than three times Trump’s margin of victory in 2020.

Trump voters in the affected region also made up 10.9 percent of the total 5,545,848 votes cast in 2020, and the average county voter participation rate is 77.3 percent.

Voter suppression in the disaster zone could be

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Four Michiganders Charged After Allegedly Voting Twice

Published

on

Democrat Attorney General Dana Nessel announced Friday that her office filed felony charges against four Michigan residents who allegedly double-voted and three assistant clerks who allegedly facilitated the illegal voting.

Four St. Clair Shores voters (Frank Prezzato, Stacy Kramer, Douglas Kempkins Jr., and Geneva O’Day) face one felony count of double-voting and one count of “Offering to Vote More than Once” after allegedly casting a vote both in person and via absentee, according to Nessel’s office.

Two St. Clair Shores assistant clerks, Patricia Guciardo and Emily McClintock, were “each charged with one count of Falsifying Election Returns or one count of Offering to Vote more than Once,” while a third clerk, Molly Brasure, “faces two counts of Falsifying Election Returns or Records and two counts each of Voting Absentee and in Person, and Offering to Vote more than Once,” according to Nessel’s office.

The four voters allegedly attempted to vote in person during the August primary election but were “informed by local poll volunteers that their absentee ballots had already been received,” Nessel’s office said, adding that the Electronic Poll Book also showed that the four had each cast an absentee ballot. But Guciardo, McClintock, and Brasure allegedly told the election workers to “override the system warnings and issue in-person ballots,” according to Nessel’s office. Guciardo, McClintock, and Brasure allegedly took steps to mark the “previously issued, voted, and returned absentee ballots as rejected, rather than received.”

The voters were permitted to vote in person and each cast a ballot.

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Trending