Connect with us

censorship

150 Top Intellectuals Sign Open Letter Decrying Cancel Culture

Numerous public figures including Noam Chomsky and Salman Rushdie oppose totalitarian march of ” ideological conformity”.

Published

on

Getty Images

150 of the world’s top intellectuals, authors and activists have signed an open letter decrying leftist cancel culture, censorship and the totalitarian march of “ideological conformity.”

Signatories include liberal icon Noam Chomsky and ‘Satanic Verses’ author Salman Rushdie.

The letter, which was published by Harpers Magazine, is also signed by J.K. Rowling, Fareed Zakaria, Garry Kasparov, and, perhaps surprisingly, feminist activist Gloria Steinem.

“The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides,” states the letter, highlighting how “the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted” as a result of “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.”

“Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes,” states the letter.

This is creating a climate of risk aversion that is preventing anyone from dissenting from the monolithic consensus of social justice rhetoric, creating a “stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time,” according to the letter.

The letter highlights the fact that there are still some genuine “liberals” left in society who are willing to stand behind the increasingly endangered species of free speech.

However, some would ask where they’ve been hiding for the past three years since mass censorship, particularly by monopolistic social media giants, has been significantly ramped up.

The idea that an open letter will do much to stop the rampaging virus of cancel culture is also up for debate. Why don’t these intellectuals organize a major conference or a massive protest march to showcase their principles?

The irony of course is that if this letter gains any traction at all, its signatories will immediately become targets for cancellation from the unhinged, woke far-left.

The full letter is reprinted below.

——————————————–

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

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
Comments

censorship

Parler Lawsuit Against Amazon Shot Down By Judge

“Parler has submitted no evidence that AWS and Twitter acted together intentionally — or even at all — in restraint of trade”

Published

on

Steve Watson

Avishek Das/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

A federal judge has rejected a request by Parler, the free speech Twitter alternative, to have its hosting restored by Amazon.

Paler’s entire website was hosted on Amazon servers (AWS) and was wiped from the internet amid claims of allowing incitement to violence in the wake of the Capitol breech on January 6th.

Supporters of President Trump and other advocates of free speech flocked to the platform as a protest against big-tech censorship.

“Parler has failed to do more than raise the specter of preferential treatment of Twitter by AWS,” wrote Rothstein, labelling Parler’s claims as “faint and factually inaccurate speculation.”

The judge further noted “The evidence it has submitted in support of the claim is both dwindlingly slight, and disputed by AWS. Importantly, Parler has submitted no evidence that AWS and Twitter acted together intentionally — or even at all — in restraint of trade… Indeed, Parler has failed to do more than raise the specter of preferential treatment of Twitter by AWS.”

Parler is claiming that Amazon is in breach of contract, and that Amazon removed services “motivated by political animus”, and as a way of benefitting Twitter, which is also set to be hosted by Amazon Web Services.

However, the judge said that “Parler has failed to allege basic facts that would support several elements of this claim.”

The judge continued “Most fatally, as discussed above, it has failed to raise more than the scantest speculation that AWS’s actions were taken for an improper purpose or by improper means … To the contrary, the evidence at this point suggests that AWS’s termination of the CSA was in response to Parler’s material breach.”

Parler is arguing that Twitter has failed to censor violent content, but has not been treated in the same way.

Amazon has stated that there is “no merit to these claims.”

Below is the full complaint by Parler that was rejected by the judge:

Parler had around 12 million users when it was removed, and is attempting a comeback.

Parler Chief Executive John Matze, who was forced into hiding for his own safety, posted a message on Paler.com asking “Hello world, is this thing on?”

“Now seems like the right time to remind you all – both lovers and haters – why we started this platform,” Matze further wrote, adding. “We believe privacy is paramount and free speech essential, especially on social media.”

“Our aim has always been to provide a nonpartisan public square where individuals can enjoy and exercise their rights to both. We will resolve any challenge before us and plan to welcome all of you back soon. We will not let civil discourse perish,” he further noted.

However, the site now appears to be offline again. 

It appears that Parler is now being hosted by Epik, the company that also hosts Twitter alternative Gab and messageboard 8chan.

Epik has stated that it disagrees with big tech moves to purge the likes of Parler, noting “It is becoming increasingly easy to demonize anyone who has different beliefs with no recognition of the actual effects and impact this can have on society.”

The company’s statement immediately led to calls for it to be targeted for annihilation, along with other hosting companies that are refusing to go along with mass censorship on the internet. 

The end point of the ongoing purge seems clear, a completely censored internet dominated and controlled by unregulated big tech elites, where only ‘acceptable’ opinions cans be accessed and shared.

Continue Reading

censorship

Anti-Trump ‘Oversight Board’ to Determine Whether Trump Will Regain Access to Facebook

Gee, I wonder what will happen?

Published

on

Chip Somodevilla via Getty Images

Facebook has announced it will leave the decision on whether or not to uphold Donald Trump’s suspension to its “oversight board,” a body that includes a Muslim Brotherhood activist and a leftist who once publicly made Barron Trump the butt of a crass joke.

Who could possibly predict what’s coming next?

Facebook suspended Trump for 2 weeks after the Capitol building incident and has now extended the suspension, although it hasn’t yet gone as far as Twitter in permanently removing Trump’s account.

In a statement released today, the social media behemoth said it would put the decision on whether to restore Trump’s access (and potentially permanently removing his account) in the hands of it’s “independent” Oversight Board.

“Given its significance, we think it is important for the board to review it and reach an independent judgment on whether it should be upheld. While we await the board’s decision, Mr. Trump’s access will remain suspended indefinitely,” said Nick Clegg, Facebook’s VP of global affairs and communications.

While Facebook and the mainstream media continue to refer to the Oversight Board as “independent,” it is full of anti-Trump technocrats, academics and activists.

As we highlighted last year, one of the board’s most influential members is Pamela Karlan, a leftist who infamously made Barron Trump the punch line of a joke during President Trump’s impeachment hearings.

“The Constitution states that there can be no titles of nobility,” said Karlan during the rant. “So while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t MAKE him a baron.”

Melania Trump responded to the attack on Barron, a minor, by telling Karlan she “should be ashamed” of herself. The Trump administration called Karlan’s statement “disgusting” and she subsequently apologized.

Karlan also once described herself as a “snarky, bisexual, Jewish women” and was described by the New York Times as a “full-throated, unapologetic liberal torchbearer.”

Another member of Facebook’s Oversight Board is Tawakkol Karman, an enthusiastic supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization that has been blamed for terrorist attacks in the Middle East.

They both sound so “independent”! Trump is surely guaranteed to get his Facebook account back.

As we previously highlighted, despite Parler being banned from the Internet over its alleged role in the Capitol building attack, it subsequently emerged that the siege had in fact been overwhelmingly facilitated by Facebook.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

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

ALERT!

null

New limited edition merch now available! Click here.

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.

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

Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

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

Continue Reading

censorship

FBI Profiler Says Banning People on Social Media Makes it Harder to Fight Terrorism

Deprives authorities of being able to track people’s activities.

Published

on

Samuel Corum via Getty Images

A former FBI profiler told NBC News that banning people on social media makes it harder to fight terrorism because it stops authorities from being able to keep track of their activity.

The remark was made in the context of a report about one of the individuals who stormed the Capitol building earlier this month – 70-year-old Lonnie Coffman.

Coffman drove a pickup truck to the protest filled with Molotov cocktails and other weapons including improvised grenades and an assault rifle, but flew completely under the radar because he had no social media presence.

The individual had no criminal record, no known extremist ties and not a single person in the town of Falkville where Coffman lived knew who he was.

“Coffman’s statements to police following his arrest and some writings found inside his truck indicate he was struggling financially and fixated on right-wing views,” states the report.

According to Clint Van Zandt, a former FBI criminal profiler, Coffman’s example proves that “the purging of people with radical views from popular social platforms, which has escalated in recent weeks, deprives investigators of a crucial tool in tracking people who might move along the continuum of ideation to action.”

“We know there are going to be guys out there that are not happy over the next four years with the Biden administration,” Van Zandt said.

“The authorities really have got their work cut out for them to identify Ted Kaczynski-type individuals who are sitting out there planning to make a difference in the world,” he added.

Despite the obvious outcome that mass social media censorship doesn’t extinguish extremism, it merely drives it underground and makes it harder to track, the media once again united after the Capitol building attack to call for mass censorship.

After three years of intense social media banning, deplatforming and blacklisting, political extremism on both sides only appears to have worsened.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

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

ALERT!

null

New limited edition merch now available! Click here.

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.

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

Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

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

Continue Reading

Trending