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.

A federal judge has sided with Amazon in its legal battle against Parler — ruling that Amazon Web Services has no obligation to host Parler after it violated its terms of service.https://t.co/X62Iu8mgft

— NPR (@NPR) January 21, 2021

“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.

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.

This woman is on Facebook's new "independent" @OversightBoard and will decide who to ban, and what content gets censored for "hate speech." pic.twitter.com/FfumKJ3xtL

— Mark Dice (@MarkDice) May 6, 2020

“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.

Facebook forms a "supreme court" which will decide what content to allow or remove from the world's largest social media platform. One of the members of the supreme court is notorious Muslim Brotherhood activist Tawakkol Karman. pic.twitter.com/m2PHDvhi9c

— Kevork Almassian (@KevorkAlmassian) May 7, 2020

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: Follow @PrisonPlanet

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

ALERT!

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.

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

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.”

FBI profiler says banning people from social media makes it harder to fight terrorism.https://t.co/0XZpYLeZOs pic.twitter.com/5gHTSBGbFu

— I,Hypocrite (@lporiginalg) January 18, 2021

“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: Follow @PrisonPlanet

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

ALERT!

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.

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