Connect with us

censorship

Infowars Settles Pepe the Frog Lawsuit, Pays Tiny Settlement to Creator Matt Furie

Strategic victory for Alex Jones after Furie demanded over $2 million in damages.

Published

on

Infowars has settled the Pepe the Frog lawsuit with creator Matt Furie for a “licensing fee” of just $15,000, a tiny amount considering Furie’s lawyers had demanded over $2 million in damages.

Last year, Furie alleged that Infowars was responsible for copyright violation over a stylized poster sold on the Infowars website created by a third party which featured a small depiction of the cartoon frog that became a mascot for the Trump campaign during 2016.

The judge in the case ruled that Furie wouldn’t be expected to obtain anything more than $14,000 in legal fees, so Furie’s lawyers sought a settlement of just $15,000.

Although the media attempted to hype the case by accusing Alex Jones of contributing to the notion of the Pepe meme as a symbol of white supremacy, the cartoon frog was actually just a small part of the original poster, which featured numerous other iconic images linked to the 2016 Trump campaign.

The corporate press will undoubtedly frame this as a victory for Furie. It wasn’t. The result clearly represents a strategic victory for Alex Jones.

The Pepe creator and his legal team – Hillary Clinton’s law firm – were looking for a jury trial and over $2 million dollars in damage, but ended up with a relatively tiny settlement. Jones also saved hundreds of thousands in potential legal fees.

According to lawyer Robert Barnes, acting on behalf of Free Speech Systems, Furie “may have spent over a million in legal fees,” rendering the eventual outcome a huge defeat for the Pepe creator.

Furie’s argument was probably not helped by the fact that in a 2015 interview with the Daily Dot about Pepe the Frog, he openly invited anyone to “profit off of” his creation.

Statement from lawyer Robert Barnes;

“Happy to announce the folks suing Infowars over Pepe the Frog have agreed to settle, and accept a licensing fee of $15,000. We were originally sued for millions. Some people thought we wouldn’t fight the case. We did. We would only pay an honest licensing fee, and nothing more.

The other side may have spent over a million in legal fees themselves. They wanted millions. They thought we wouldn’t fight. They thought we wouldn’t win in court. They thought wrong.

We will always stand up for the rights of the people, and will never be bullied by lawsuits, even those brought by big corporate law firms with $1000/hour lawyers. They would have made more money if they went and waitressed with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for a few months. So, the Pepe trial is over. We made our point.”

Mark Zuckerberg hates it when you share this article on Facebook.

———————————————————————————————————————

There is a war on free speech. Without your support, my voice will be silenced.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading
Comments

censorship

Siri is Now Refusing to Say the Word “Gun”

Yes, really.

Published

on

Apple’s Siri voice assistant is now apparently refusing to say the word “gun” when used on an iPad.

Tracy Connors tweeted a video of herself attempting to have Siri read out a Daily Caller headline entitled ‘Virginia House of Delegates Passes Gun Ban, Seizure Bill’.

Instead of saying the word ‘gun’, Siri spelled out the letters G-U-N.

“Apple is now our parent and we’re fragile little children who can’t hear scary words,” said Connors.

As far back as 2016, Apple replaced its gun emoji with a water pistol in response to “a series of shootings in the US.”

Apparently, censoring words and changing how cartoon drawings appear is going to stop mass shootings.

Good luck with that, Apple.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

censorship

YouTube Pledges To Remove “Manipulated” Election-related Videos

Published

on

Steve Watson

Wrongthink could be defined as ‘misleading voters’

Youtube announced this week that it will begin removing election-related videos that are “manipulated or doctored” with the aim of influencing voters.

The move is part of an effort by the Google owned company to be a “more reliable source” for news and to promote a “healthy political discourse”.

YouTube’s vice president of government affairs and public policy, Leslie Miller commented “…the service’s community standards prohibit content that has been technically manipulated or doctored in a way that misleads users… and may pose a serious risk of egregious harm.”

Of course, what constitutes “manipulation” and a “healthy political discourse” will be entirely decided by techie elites in Silicon Vally, who don’t have the most balanced of records.

Therefore, merely including footage of election candidates in videos and expressing an opinion that doesn’t jive with YouTube overlords could be construed as ‘misleading voters’ by the company.

YouTube says it is not only going to focus on so called ‘deep fake’ videos, where AI software is used to make it appear that a political figure is doing or saying something they have actually never done or said, but that they will also look for what they describe as ‘shallow fakes’.

Again, what ‘shallow fakes’ actually are is not specifically explained, except to say that they use more ‘rudimentary’ techniques than deep fakes to mislead voters.

The only specific examples YouTube gives is that it will remove videos that claim  “a candidate is not eligible to hold office based on false information about citizenship status requirements” and that it will remove any video “manipulated to make it appear that a government official is dead” or that “aims to mislead people about voting or the census processes, like telling viewers an incorrect voting date.”

YouTube has a recent history of banning Conservative opinion on its platform:

The move by YouTube follows an announcement by Facebook that it will not interfere with political ads on its platform, and an announcement conversely by Twitter that it will ban all political ads for candidates.

Twitter also announced that it will crack down on ‘synthetic or manipulated media that are likely to cause harm’:

The platform just banned conservative investigative reporter James O’Keefe for probing into Bernie Sanders’ campaign:

Continue Reading

censorship

Facebook Censors Jordan Peterson Video Link Sent in Private Message

Thought crime patrolling reaches absurd new level.

Published

on

Facebook is now so censorship happy that it is blocking links to Jordan Peterson videos sent between two people via private message.

Yes, really.

A screenshot posted to The Donald Reddit forum titled “THE DYSTOPIA IS NOW. Facebook censored a PRIVATE MESSAGE I sent because it has a link to Jordan Peterson’s Bible Lecture Series” illustrates the ridiculous new standard.

When the user attempted to send a link to Peterson’s video to his friend, the URL was blocked and replaced with the text, “This message was removed because it includes a link that goes against our Community Standards.”

null

Facebook appears to have a clear bias against biblical discussion.

As we previously highlighted, the company banned a peace-loving quote by St. Augustine of Hippo, a Catholic theologian and philosopher, saying it was “hate speech”.

In addition to blocking links that contain thought crimes, when Facebook suspends a user, it also prevents them entirely from using its messenger function.

For many people, Facebook messenger is their only means of communication with friends and loved ones, meaning that if an emergency were to occur and the user was suspended, it could actually result in real world harm.

Given that the social media giant openly incited violence against people it deemed “dangerous individuals” (including yours truly), it’s unsurprising that they would put people deemed to be thought criminals at risk.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

Trending