Connect with us

Tech

ORWELLIAN: Twitter Censors Big League Politics Article About Joe Biden Attacking 17-Year-Old Kyle Rittenhouse

Big Tech does not want the truth to get out.

Published

on

Twitter has censored a Big League Politics article detailing a statement made by the Joe Biden campaign attacking 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot two communists dead and shot another in the bicep in Kenosha, Wisc. and faces murder charges as a result.

The monolithic social media platform informed the BLP Twitter account on Wednesday that they are censoring a nearly 3-week-old article titled, “Joe Biden Smears American Hero Kyle Rittenhouse,” claiming that it glorifies violence.

The notice can be seen here:

Trending: GOP Establishment Threatens President Trump with Impeachment Unless He Denies Election Fraud

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Twitter is not the only platform to censor BLP articles in an attempt to suppress the truth from the masses. Facebook also has BLP in their cross hairs, using a truth commission of fake news hacks to serve as their so-called fact checkers.

Facebook once tried to censor content published by BLP to expose the bizarre and unexplained circumstances surrounding the mysterious death of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein in a Manhattan jail cell:

Facebook’s new ministry of truth, led by disreputable fact checking operations like Lead Stories, has been initiated to stifle independent voices on the social media giant, but they have been caught and forced to backtrack after trying to suppress news about camera malfunctions near Jeffrey Epstein’s cell during his mysterious death at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City last month.

“There were no media reports that a camera monitoring Epstein’s cell area malfunctioned in the hours before the accused sex traffickers death on Saturday August 10, 2019,” claimed Duke, the 26-year veteran of CNN who co-founded Lead Stories, in a blatant deception within the bogus fact check of the story that initially broke on Big League Politics.

Duke’s analysis was false because Big League Politics referenced a media report by digital media specialist Michael Coudrey that he initially refused to acknowledge in his phony fact check.

The phony fact checkers also targeted another BLP article to suppress the truth about Democrat tyrants in Virginia usurping unlawful authority against the 1st Amendment of the Constitution:

Last week, Big League Politics reported on a bill introduced in the Virginia legislature that would effectively criminalize dissent against government officials.

Virginia House Bill 1627 was introduced by Democrat Delegate Jeffrey M. Bourne to protect government officials from so-called harassment caused by “indecent language” transmitted over a “computer or computer network.”

The full language reads as follows: “If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”

The legislation applies the above provision directly to “the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.”

Because of the intentionally nebulous and vague nature of the terminology in the legislation, the legislation constitutes a blanket ban of criticism on public officials. A judge, likely appointed by the government officials in question, would determine what constitutes harassment as well as what constitutes “obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language.”

In short, the egregiously unconstitutional bill would make free speech dependent on rulings by biased government appointees, and cause a chilling effect on those who wish to speak out against public officials. This is the type of intolerable act that the Founding Fathers waged a revolutionary war to put to an end.

The Orwellian truth commission set up by Facebook found fault with the report and took measures to prevent it from being disseminated widely on the platform. They had their hired goons at Politifact flag the story as fake news in order to restrict the story from being shared and prevent social media users from knowing the truth about what is happening in Virginia.

Politifact claims that the legislation “spells out criminal penalties for harassment of or threats made to certain state officials. It does not affect ordinary free speech.” This is an assessment that is at best embarrassingly naive, but more likely the cognizant disinformation from a guilty and complicit agent of Big Brother.

The Orwellian push by Silicon Valley corporations is intensifying before the election. They must lose their Section 230 subsidies under the federal government for their heinous and anti-American business practices against free speech.

Tech

Canadian Court Rules That Businessman Has the Right to Sue Twitter for Defamation

This could be a gamechanger.

Published

on

A Canadian court has ruled that Frank Giustra, a billionaire from British Columbia who sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation, is able to sue Twitter for defamation.

Giustra is suing Twitter after users of the platform accused him of being connected to “PizzaGate,” the theory that gained traction on social media that there is a child sex ring of some sort operating out of a ritzy Washington D.C. pizza joint.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elliott Myers would not comment on the merits of Giustra’s case when he made his ruling. He noted that Twitter would be protected in American courts due to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, but those protections might not necessarily apply in the Canadian courts.

“The presumption is that a defendant should be sued in only one jurisdiction for an alleged wrong, but that is not a simple goal to achieve fairly for internet defamation,” Myers wrote.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“I do not agree with Twitter who argues that ‘of all places in the world, the plaintiff’s reputation has not been harmed in B.C.’,” he added.

Giustra is happy with Myers’ decision and hopes that he is able to hold Twitter accountable once the case is heard in court.

“I hope this lawsuit will help raise public awareness of the real harm to society if social media platforms are not held responsible for the content posted and published on their sites,” he said. 

“I believe that words do matter, and recent events have demonstrated that hate speech can incite violence with deadly consequences,” Giustra added.

Big League Politics has reported on how Twitter and other tech giants have hidden behind legal protections in order to enforce a partisan political agenda:

The communications directors at many Big Tech entities – including Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat – have been revealed as veteran Democrat Party operatives…

Much of what is posted by Starbuck holds up to journalistic scrutiny. Twitter communications director Nick Pacillo once worked as a spokesman for Democrat vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris while she was California attorney general. It has been alleged that he continues to serve her in his privileged role with Twitter, as supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) believe the platform blocked donations for their preferred presidential candidate while he was running against Harris.

Meanwhile Andy Stone – who serves as Facebook’s Policy Communications Director – has been working in various capacities to assure Democrat victory for over a decade. He was celebrated for his career of service to the Democrats when he joined their House Majority PAC in 2012…

If Big Tech cannot be defeated in the courts, a full-scale nationalization of these entities may be the last option to stop the permanent manifestation of the Orwellian nightmare.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending