Connect with us

Tech

Proud Boy Magazine Banned From Patreon After SPLC Smear

They used a smear by the leftist SPLC to ban them.

Published

on

The crowdfunding website Patreon has de-platformed Proud Boy Magazine, according to an email screenshot provided to Big League Politics.

Proud Boy Magazine is a website largely known as a communication hub for the generally conservative-leaning fraternal organizing featured in its namesake, and has hosted articles written by Proud Boy founder, and CRTV personality Gavin McInnes.

The email provided can be read here:

Trending: Dr. Anthony Fauci Plotted ‘Global Vaccine Action Plan’ with Bill Gates Before Pushing COVID Panic and Doubts About Hydroxychloroquine Treatments

take our poll - story continues below

Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump?

  • Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump? 

  • 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.

In the email sent to the owner of the Patreon page, the website’s Trust and Safety Team stated they removed the page because the Proud Boys have been flagged as a hate group by “diverse organisations,” presumably alluding towards the Southern Poverty Law Center labeling the group in their “General Hate” category on their site. That category seemed to be created for the sole purpose of labeling the Proud Boys, and their affiliated Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights (FOAK) group.

Patreon also stated that the affiliation with FOAK is another reason for the removal. FOAK is known as the “militant” wing of the Proud Boys, and have been seen at protests nationwide acting in a solely defensive manor against violent Antifa protesters.

The assertions made by Patreon are fervently denied by Pawl Bazile, Production Manager at Proud Boy Magazine. He called Patreon’s de-platforming the “height of absurdity,” and specifically labeled articles put out by left-wing organizations and websites like the Southern Poverty Law Center as unfair hit-pieces.

“The ‘diverse’ articles they are citing are clearly hit pieces and conjecture that we hardly ever get asked to comment on by the authors,” Bazile stated. “If having fairly mainstream and common sense opinions on culture convinced a hack admin from Patreon that we are a so called ‘hate group,’ than clearly they took action for political reasons.”

Bazile continued, explaining more on what the group is about.

“We’re a politically incorrect men’s social club bucking the establishment and keeping the promises punk rockers failed at. The people who bash us are miserable failures who can’t handle the thought that the guys who waved off their made up authoritarian rules are having a blast.”

As for the tenants of the group, Bazile explained:

“We like free speech. We’re anti-racist. We’re pro-gun. We love the military. We’re anti-drug war. We think modern society is a good thing. We believe women and men both have important roles to play. We also don’t care if you’re gay. I don’t understand where the hate-part comes in.”

Big League Politics has previously reported on the Proud Boys, and spoken with Gavin McInnes about the “Hate Group” label concocted by the SPLC. McInnes strongly denied that the Proud Boys are hateful in any way, pointing towards articles published on Proud Boy Magazine denying affiliations with the alt-right, and disavowing last summer’s deadly “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, VA.

Immediately after publishing that article, a leader from a pro-Trump LGBT group reached out to Big League Politics to show his support for the group, calling them “allies.”

“Every single Proud Boy I have met have been very accepting of me and our organization,” said Brian Talbert, founder of Deplorable Pride, a group of gay Trump supporters. “Not many hate groups accept gays,” Talbert added.

In the void of funding in the wake of Patreon’s de-platforming, Bazile stated that supporters can support the website by purchasing merchandise found on their online store.

Patreon could not be immediately reached for comment. This article will be updated if we receive comment.

 

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

Tech

Banished Journalist Laura Loomer’s $1.5 Billion Lawsuit Against Tech Giants Will Be Heard in Court

Loomer will have her day in court.

Published

on

Banished journalist and Florida U.S. House candidate Laura Loomer’s lawsuit against Big Tech will be heard in the court of law following an order in the D.C. Circuit on Thursday.

Loomer is accusing tech giants such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter of conspiring to suppress conservative voices on their platforms. The lawsuit is challenging these monolithic corporations for allegedly violating antitrust law as well as the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Her lawsuit had been previously tossed out by U.S. District Judge Trever N. McFadden, a Trump appointee to the bench, who stated that “while selective censorship of the kind alleged by the plaintiffs may be antithetical to the American tradition of freedom of speech, it is not actionable under the First Amendment unless perpetrated by a state actor.” However, Loomer was able to use a recent court ruling to resurrect her lawsuit despite the initial setback.

Loomer’s legal team, led by the right-wing political interest group Freedom Watch, used the precedent of Packingham v. North Carolina, a ruling which determined that it was unconstitutional to ban sex offenders from social media. The case essentially set the precedent that social media is a 1st Amendment right.

take our poll - story continues below

Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump?

  • Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump? 

  • 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.

“Many of the principles set forth by the Supreme Court in Packingham lead to what appellants believe is the natural progression of the law to hold that social media companies are liable for First Amendment violations, given the progression of technology and its infiltration into the daily lives of nearly every single person,” Loomer’s team said in their final brief presented to the court.

Loomer points to Twitter banning her from the platform at the end of 2018 after she said that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) adheres to a religion in which “women are abused” and “forced to wear the hijab.” She was similarly banned from Instagram for her assertion that Islam is “a cancer on humanity,” and Facebook, which owns Instagram, quickly followed suit and banned her even though the offending post was not made on that platform.

Loomer still cannot get her accounts restored despite the fact that she is running for the U.S. House in Florida’s 21st Congressional District, which could be considered a form of electoral interference.

Through her legal fight against the tech giants, Loomer is forcing them to reveal that they are no longer neutral platforms:

The tech behemoth Facebook has admitted that it is a publisher while defending its arbitrary censorship of banished journalist Laura Loomer, according to court documents.

Facebook banned Loomer’s account from their platform during a purge of popular conservative voices that happened in May. Others targeted by the purge included Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson. Loomer is striking back with a lawsuit that is unearthing some interesting revelations about the social media monolith.

“Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message,” Facebook’s attorneys wrote.

Facebook actually has the audacity to claim that their 1st Amendment rights are being violated by Loomer’s lawsuit, in a total contorting of reality. They have filed a motion to dismiss the case.

“She claims Facebook labeled her as a ‘dangerous’ person who promotes hate – yet, the First Amendment has long protected such statements because they are opinions that are not capable of being proven true or false,” Facebook’s attorneys claim in their dismissal motion.

Right now, Facebook is protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from being held liable for the content published on their platform. This special exemption worked fine when the social network engaged in relative neutrality, but those days are no more as Big Tech is at war with conservative and pro-Trump voices.

Loomer hopes to have her ability to communicate fully restored and to make Big Tech pay for infringing on her basic rights.

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


Trending