This is what the left has planned for you
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
YouTube has taken down a video of two doctors who held a press conference calling for the reopening of the country.
According to the Google-owned video platform, the doctors “violated community guidelines.”
The doctors, Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, argued that the Chinese virus has proven less deadly than anticipated.
“We have 39.5 million people, if we just take a basic calculation and extrapolate that out, that equates to about 4.7 million cases throughout the state of California,” said Dr. Erickson. “Which means this thing is widespread, that’s the good news. We’ve seen 1,227 deaths in the state of California with a possible incidents or prevalence of 4.7 million. That means you have a 0.03 chance of dying from COVID-19 in the state of California.”
The doctors made their case in a 50-minute press conference, which was uploaded to YouTube.
ABC News, who uploaded the video, confirmed that the first part of the press conference is no longer available on YouTube.
In the video, which has been re-uploaded to other channels as well as to other video-hosting platforms, Dr. Erickson said that the focus on the coronavirus was drawing medical resources away from other urgent problems.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/04/28/youtube-censors-video-of-california-doctors-calling-for-reopening-of-country/
According to the Google-owned video platform, the doctors “violated community guidelines.”
The doctors, Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi, argued that the Chinese virus has proven less deadly than anticipated.
“We have 39.5 million people, if we just take a basic calculation and extrapolate that out, that equates to about 4.7 million cases throughout the state of California,” said Dr. Erickson. “Which means this thing is widespread, that’s the good news. We’ve seen 1,227 deaths in the state of California with a possible incidents or prevalence of 4.7 million. That means you have a 0.03 chance of dying from COVID-19 in the state of California.”
The doctors made their case in a 50-minute press conference, which was uploaded to YouTube.
ABC News, who uploaded the video, confirmed that the first part of the press conference is no longer available on YouTube.
In the video, which has been re-uploaded to other channels as well as to other video-hosting platforms, Dr. Erickson said that the focus on the coronavirus was drawing medical resources away from other urgent problems.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/04/28/youtube-censors-video-of-california-doctors-calling-for-reopening-of-country/
You're missing the point.
Ted Cruz wrote in a tweet, "YouTube & Google should NOT have the power to censor speech—particularly on critical issues of concern. The doctors' views here aren't fraud. If YouTube disagrees, argue ON THE MERITS. Don't abuse monopoly power—and special congressional liability immunity—to become speech police."
CNN Business
CNN Business
Ted Cruz will likely not win reelection if most Texans stay home and vote by mail.
Noking
Fight authoritarianism support Noking
Legion, who decides what Fox News reports?????????????????
Restrictions for thee but not for me, says leftist judge
Donald Trump’s actions blocking individual accounts on Twitter are unconstitutional, a U.S. District Court judge has ruled.
Trump — who notoriously uses Twitter as his social-media platform of choice — has blocked several celebrities on Twitter, including novelist Stephen King, Rosie O’Donnell and Chrissy Teigen.
In a decision Wednesday, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Twitter’s “interactive space” constitutes a public forum, and that blocking users violates their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.
The court rejected the argument from Trump’s lawyers that the president’s own First Amendment rights would be abridged if he was not allowed to block users.
“In sum, we conclude that the blocking of the individual plaintiffs as a result of the political views they have expressed is impermissible under the First Amendment,” U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in the ruling. “While we must recognize, and are sensitive to, the President’s personal First Amendment rights, he cannot exercise those rights in a way that infringes the corresponding First Amendment rights of those who have criticized him.”
The lawsuit against Trump, which also named White House social-media director Daniel Scavino among the defendants, was filed last year by Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute and seven individuals who said Trump had blocked them on Twitter.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction ordering Trump to unblock specific Twitter users. “[T]hough we conclude that injunctive relief may be awarded in this case — at minimum, against Scavino — we decline to do so at this time because declaratory relief is likely to achieve the same purpose,” the judge wrote in her ruling.
Judge Buchwald added, “Because no government official is above the law and because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional.”
The suit had also named White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders as a defendant, but the court said the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue her in this case. Hope Hicks also was dismissed as a defendant “in light of her resignation as White House Communications Director,” Judge Buchwald ruled.
https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/trump-block-twitter-users-unconstitutional-court-ruling-1202819850/
Donald Trump’s actions blocking individual accounts on Twitter are unconstitutional, a U.S. District Court judge has ruled.
Trump — who notoriously uses Twitter as his social-media platform of choice — has blocked several celebrities on Twitter, including novelist Stephen King, Rosie O’Donnell and Chrissy Teigen.
In a decision Wednesday, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Twitter’s “interactive space” constitutes a public forum, and that blocking users violates their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.
The court rejected the argument from Trump’s lawyers that the president’s own First Amendment rights would be abridged if he was not allowed to block users.
“In sum, we conclude that the blocking of the individual plaintiffs as a result of the political views they have expressed is impermissible under the First Amendment,” U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald wrote in the ruling. “While we must recognize, and are sensitive to, the President’s personal First Amendment rights, he cannot exercise those rights in a way that infringes the corresponding First Amendment rights of those who have criticized him.”
The lawsuit against Trump, which also named White House social-media director Daniel Scavino among the defendants, was filed last year by Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute and seven individuals who said Trump had blocked them on Twitter.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction ordering Trump to unblock specific Twitter users. “[T]hough we conclude that injunctive relief may be awarded in this case — at minimum, against Scavino — we decline to do so at this time because declaratory relief is likely to achieve the same purpose,” the judge wrote in her ruling.
Judge Buchwald added, “Because no government official is above the law and because all government officials are presumed to follow the law once the judiciary has said what the law is, we must assume that the President and Scavino will remedy the blocking we have held to be unconstitutional.”
The suit had also named White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders as a defendant, but the court said the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue her in this case. Hope Hicks also was dismissed as a defendant “in light of her resignation as White House Communications Director,” Judge Buchwald ruled.
https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/trump-block-twitter-users-unconstitutional-court-ruling-1202819850/
Fox News does, for now. That could change.
JPP could be censored or shut down soon
Jack Goldsmith, of Harvard Law School, and Andrew Keane Woods of the University of Arizona Law School, have a remarkable article in the Atlantic that defends technology companies’ surveillance and speech controls.
“Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet,” they write, “and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.”
“The First and Fourth Amendments as currently interpreted, and the American aversion to excessive government-private-sector collaboration, have stood as barriers to greater government involvement. Americans’ understanding of these laws, and the cultural norms they spawned, will be tested as the social costs of a relatively open internet multiply.”
That’s all-too-often the story when those in power scare us into giving them certain “temporary” powers.
Or when big business invites the government to regulate an industry, as Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has done.
When government and business collude, the average citizen loses out.
Recall the parable about two wolves and a sheep arguing over what’s for dinner.
That is why we have constitutional rights to begin with, and why the private-sector innovators who have truly helped out during this pandemic haven’t been in bed with government programs or “advisers.”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/27/china-style-internet-control-is-one-of-the-worst-ideas-for-solving-coronavirus/
Jack Goldsmith, of Harvard Law School, and Andrew Keane Woods of the University of Arizona Law School, have a remarkable article in the Atlantic that defends technology companies’ surveillance and speech controls.
“Significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet,” they write, “and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with a society’s norms and values.”
“The First and Fourth Amendments as currently interpreted, and the American aversion to excessive government-private-sector collaboration, have stood as barriers to greater government involvement. Americans’ understanding of these laws, and the cultural norms they spawned, will be tested as the social costs of a relatively open internet multiply.”
That’s all-too-often the story when those in power scare us into giving them certain “temporary” powers.
Or when big business invites the government to regulate an industry, as Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has done.
When government and business collude, the average citizen loses out.
Recall the parable about two wolves and a sheep arguing over what’s for dinner.
That is why we have constitutional rights to begin with, and why the private-sector innovators who have truly helped out during this pandemic haven’t been in bed with government programs or “advisers.”
https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/27/china-style-internet-control-is-one-of-the-worst-ideas-for-solving-coronavirus/