Tag: President Trump

Blocking WE THE PEOPLE on the internet and how Twitter just got trolled

See the post about Operation Mockingbird for a fuller picture of how we are being manipulated by the information we are allowed to see.  As you may have heard, the modern day equivalent of book-banning is blocking voices that are contrary to the mockingbird narrative on
social media and other sites.  These sites have been accused of blocking and suppressing conservative content and others (some of which are just exposing a public person’s bad behavior) for some time now:

 

I am not an attorney, but I think Twitter has just unknowingly set itself up for some trouble.  It looks like the government trolled them by getting this judge to rule that POTUS’ account on Twitter is a public forum.

Trump can’t block people on Twitter, says federal judge

The argument has always been that these companies are privately held, and those of us who value private property rights have tended to value that argument.  However, the Supreme Court has ruled that even private entities do NOT have the right to ban speech on their property if they own a monopoly…the more private entities open their property to public use, the fewer rights they have to control or ban what people do on that property.

The judge ruled that Trump can’t block anyone on Twitter and agreed with the argument that DJT’s Twitter account is a public forum, which chips away at any future argument Twitter might have that they own private property rights to what goes on on their platform, and any future argument Twitter might have they don’t actually have a monopoly on the means by which the speech can take place.

You can’t just block off a section of the roads and sidewalks and say only this section is public but all the other sections are private, right?

On the other side, the government argued that Twitter isn’t a public forum, and by doing so, they just got a judge to state otherwise.  Was the government lawyers’ intention to troll the Twitter lawyers?

And yet, these companies continue to suppress speech…

Twitter to crack down on trolls by demoting their tweets automatically

Facebook deleted 583 million fake accounts in the first three months of 2018

So which is it – Twitter is a government forum or private company?  We all have freedom of speech or just some of us?  You can’t have it both ways, folks.   I am not a lawyer, but it looks to me like Twitter is sliding down a self-created slippery slope of B.S. full speed.

Stick with me here…

Why This is Nuts: A Federal Judge Says Donald Trump Can’t Block People on Twitter

Trump’s personal Twitter account is not “owned or controlled by the government” because he uses it for official purposes. Saying otherwise is preposterous. The forum is owned and controlled by Twitter, no one else.  We’ve learned this the hard way over the years as people lose their posting privileges in what seems like a rather willy nilly pattern.  (Remember in November of 2017 when Trump lost his Twitter privileges and the internet went nuts?  That was a “human error.”  In other words, an employee who was leaving his job decided to go out with a bang.  But that lone act of a very low level employee shows you who actually holds the power.)

Twitter, for better or for worse, is in control of Twitter. The social media giant even has weaved in some pretty sweeping language about its ownership all of our tweets — not just the President’s:

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.

They have a right to be this controlling, because Twitter — it goes without saying — owns Twitter.  Trump (and all of us who are on it) have to speak according to the rules they deem appropriate.  Though we can argue all day about whether their rules are fair, the bottom line: Trump’s personal Twitter account is not a government forum.

This guy is arguing that Trump’s account is not a government forum (which is what the government argued in this case), and yet, it seems to me if a judge has said that Twitter holds a government forum on their platform, I think they have just given a piece of themselves away (a section of the sidewalk).  I am wondering if in the future it could be argued that all of Twitter – and not just POTUS’ account – is a designated public forum.  How many government officials do you see using Twitter after all?  Do you see where I am going with this?

From:  Restricting Speech in the Limited Public Forum The issue: What is a limited public forum? What restrictions the government place on speech in a limited public forum?

A limited (or designated) public forum, according to the Supreme Court, is a forum set aside by government for expressive activities.  Like a traditional public forum, content-based speech restrictions in a designated public forum are subject to strict scrutiny.  The government may, of course, impose time, place, or manner regulations consistent with the test laid out in cases such as Ward v Rock Against Racism (see page on time, place, or manner regulations in the traditional public forum). 

The Court’s first explicit statement of the designated public forum doctrine came in Southeastern Promotions v Conrad.  Southeastern Promotions sought permission to use Chattanooga, Tennessee’s municipal auditorium for performances of the musical “Hair.”  Although the auditorium had been rented for a wide variety of expressive activities prior to Southeastern’s application, Chattanooga city officials refused Southeastern’s request, citing Hair’s nudity, tacit approval for drug use, sexual themes, and bad language.  The Court found the municipal auditorium to be a designated public forum, and the city’s refusal to permit use of its auditorium to be an unconstitutional prior restraint.

Rosenberger v University of Virginia demonstrates that a limited public forum need not be a physical place.  In Rosenberger, the Court found that Virginia had created a limited public forum when it established a fund that would cover the cost of publications by eligible student groups.  Once having created such a forum (which, of course, it was under no obligation to do), Virginia could not refuse funding to a student organization because of the overtly religious nature of its publication.

By Twitter giving just a piece of itself to that designation, I can only hope that they will quickly lose ground in their efforts to silence speech and demoralize a nation:

“This (How To Brainwash A Nation) amazing interview was done back in 1985 with a former KGB agent who was trained in subversion techniques. He explains the 4 basic steps to socially engineering entire generations into thinking and behaving the way those in power want them to. It’s shocking because our nation has been transformed in the exact same way, and followed the exact same steps.”:

As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore; a person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information.  The facts tell nothing to him.  Even if I shower him with information – with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures – even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom.  When the military boot crashes his ___, then he will understand, but not before then.  That’s the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.

 

I’m looking forward to the class action lawsuits that will accompany the others:  Facebook Faces Class Action Lawsuit for Saving Text and Call Logs of Users, Facebook Faces Class Action Lawsuit Challenging Its Use Of Facial Recognition Data, Join Facebook 2018 Class Action Lawsuit: $708 Payment Likely For Personality Quiz ‘thisismydigitallife’ Breach, A Class Action Lawsuit Against Twitter, Kim Dotcom threatens Twitter class action over user password exposure

 

Border Security

Trump Tweet: “I’m also calling on Congress to immediately close the deadly border security loopholes that endanger our country. All over our country we’re living with laws that don’t work.”

Trump Tweet: The Democrats are not doing what’s right for our country. I will not rest until we have secured our borders and restored the rule of law!

Who is Bill Binney?

Who is Bill Binney and why does Q reference him in December, 2017?  Q says he is a “PATRIOT of the highest caliber.”  In that case, GOD BLESS YOU and thank you for your service to my country, Bill.

 

(Emphasis added from this Wikileaks page accessed May 19, 2018 = mine.  And also a couple of comments from me about Clowns in America.)

William Edward Binney is a former highly placed intelligence official with the United States National Security Agency (NSA) turned whistleblower who resigned on October 31, 2001, after more than 30 years with the agency.

He was a high-profile critic of his former employers during the George W. Bush administration, and later criticized the NSA’s data collection policies during the Barack Obama administration. In 2016, he said the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election was false.

After the NSA

After he left the NSA in 2001, Binney was one of several people investigated as part of an inquiry into a 2005 The New York Times exposé on the agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program. Binney was cleared of wrongdoing after three interviews with FBI agents beginning in March 2007, but in early July 2007, in an unannounced, armed, early morning raid, a dozen agents armed with rifles appeared at his house, one of whom entered the bathroom and pointed his gun at Binney, who was taking a shower. The FBI confiscated a desktop computer, disks, and personal and business records. The NSA revoked his security clearance, forcing him to close a business he ran with former colleagues at a loss of a reported $300,000 in annual income. The FBI raided the homes of Wiebe and Loomis, as well as House Intelligence Committee staffer Diane Roark, the same morning. Several months later the Bureau raided the home of then still active NSA executive Thomas Andrews Drake who had also contacted DoD IG, but anonymously with confidentiality assured. The Assistant Inspector General, John Crane, in charge of the Whistleblower Program, suspecting his superiors provided confidential information to the Justice Dept (DOJ), challenged them, was eventually forced from his position, and subsequently himself became a public whistleblower. The punitive treatment of Binney, Drake, and the other whistleblowers also led Edward Snowden to go public with his revelations rather than report through the internal whistleblower program. In 2012, Binney and his co-plaintiffs went to federal court to retrieve the confiscated items.

Allegations on intercepts

Binney is known for making the claim that the NSA collects and stores information about every U.S. communication. Binney was invited as a witness by the NSA commission of the German Bundestag. On July 3, 2014 Der Spiegel wrote, he said that the NSA wanted to have information about everything. In Binney’s view this is a totalitarian approach, which had previously been seen only in dictatorships. Binney stated that the goal was to control people. Meanwhile, he said that it is possible in principle to monitor the whole population, abroad and in the U.S., which in his view contradicts the United States Constitution.

In August 2014 Binney was among the signatories of an open letter by the group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity to German chancellor Angela Merkel in which they urged the Chancellor to be suspicious of U.S. intelligence regarding the alleged invasion of Russia in Eastern Ukraine. In the open letter, the group said:

Accusations of a major Russian “invasion” of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the “intelligence” seems to be of the same dubious, politically “fixed” kind used 12 years ago to “justify” the U.S.-led attack on Iraq.

Binney’s Opinion on “Russian Interference” in the 2016 election

Binney claims the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election is false, and that the DNC e-mails were leaked by an insider instead. He has appeared on Fox News at least ten times between September 2016 and November 2017 to promote this fringe theory. [haha good try Clowns – we are on to you]  Binney said that the “intelligence community wasn’t being honest here”. He has also been frequently cited on Breitbart News. In November 2017 it was reported that a month earlier, Binney had met with CIA Director Mike Pompeo at the behest of President Trump.

Binney has said he voted for Trump in the 2016 presidential election, calling Hillary Clinton a “war monger”.

Role in apparent release of the Nunes Memo

On January 23, 2018, Binney made an appearance on the Infowars news program in connection with the Nunes memo, a Congressional document alleging irregularities in the application of the FISA Act, which at that time was not publicly available although its potential release was a topic of public debate. During the show, host Alex Jones [Clowns in America?] announced that Binney had been able to provide him with the actual memo, and the purported leaked document was shown on air. However, this was in fact a public document that had been available on the website of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence since at least May 2017. The actual Nunes memo was released February 2, 2018.

 

Well…this is interesting. Note the name tag.  I’ve been wondering if Snowden was helping Q out.  Is this an indication?  Is he a white hat?

Click pic for link
Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started