Twitter suspends small business advocacy group that called for regulating Big Tech as utilities

Twitter has suspended the account of the Job Creators Network, a nonpartisan group that advocates for small businesses and policies that protect Main Street jobs.

According to the group, the social media giant sent them a message late last week saying JCN had violated Twitter’s “rules against platform manipulation and spam.”

Company President and CEO Alfredo Ortiz rejects that claim, saying the deplatforming effort is retaliation against JCN for implying that Twitter should be regulated as a utility.

“Twitter has silenced JCN and the 30 million small business owners it represents after JCN implied that the tech giant should be regulated as a utility,” Ortiz said in a statement. “Given that JCN’s internal review demonstrates we did not violate Twitter’s terms and conditions, the tech giant’s bold move is likely pure retaliation against us for our position on tech regulations.”

Twitter on Monday did not respond immediately to several attempts to contact the company to learn why JCN, which advocates for lower taxes and progressive policies, had been removed from the site.

Last month, Ortiz wrote an op-ed published by RealClearPolitics titled, “Big Tech’s Conservative Purge Changes the Free Speech Debate.”

JCN Chief Communications Officer Elaine Parker on Monday told the “John Solomon Reports” podcast the op-ed argued for Washington to begin regulating social media platforms and other tech giants as utilities.

“The reason behind that is because it would it would preclude them from excluding services based on political beliefs and ideology,” Parker told host John Solomon. “I mean, when when you’re getting your phone service through AT&T, they don’t care who you vote for, or who you support or what your political background is. They just want to sell you a service … right?”

The deplatforming of JCN signifies, to Ortiz, that the points he shared in his opinion essay become truer by the day.

“Twitter’s retribution signifies a new front in the company’s aggressive censorship efforts,” he also said. “The biggest losers are American small business owners whose voices are silenced by this tech oligarch. Twitter’s violation of free speech and First Amendment values are outrageous and indefensible. Their latest actions further bolster our position that social media companies need further regulation and more small business competitors. We have appealed Twitter’s ban, and expect an explanation and apology.”

Source: Just the News

YouTube To Delete Content That ‘Undermines’ 2020 US Election Results

YouTube will begin removing any content they deem to be ‘misleading’ by alleging widespread voter fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 US election, according to Bloomberg.

The Google subsidiary says it will remove videos claiming President Trump won due to counting errors or software glitches (regardless of whether they’re evidence of said instances, we assume).

“Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President- elect,” said YouTube in a statement.

The company says it’s terminated over 8,000 channels and ‘thousands of misleading elections-related videos’ for violating preexisting policies. Over 77% of those were automatically removed before they had 100 views.

As Bloomberg notes, YouTube suspended news network OAN and completely demonetized their channel on November 24 over an ‘unlisted’ video on their channel which was not not able to be viewed publicly. They were prevented from posting new content for one week as well.

The same day, Democratic Senators asked YouTube to remove ‘election misinformation.’

Source: ZeroHedge

Norway Parliament Extends ‘Hate Speech’ Legislation to Include Transgender

Norway’s parliament has voted to extend “Hate Speech” legislation against criticism of homosexuals—who have been “protected” since 1981—to “transgender” people. This means that a violent crime will be more harshly punished if it is considered to be motivated by hatred of transsexuals, and that it will be an offence to incite violence against them or use “dehumanizing” language against them both in public and in private [Norway outlaws hate speech against trans people, By Rachel Savage, Reuters, November 25, 2020].

“In private” would seem to imply something utterly Orwellian, making it an offense to “dehumanize” i.e. criticize transsexuals in conversations in your own home with your family, as some commentators have suggested [Norway Criminalizes Hate Speech Against Transgender People . . . In Private Homes or Conversationsby Jonathan Turley, JonathanTurley.com, November 29, 2020].

Not coincidentally, this soft totalitarianism is exactly what seems to be envisaged in the pro-immigration Scottish Nationalist Party’s very similar proposed legislation [SNP’s new hate crime law could see people prosecuted for expressing views in OWN HOMES. by Richard Percival, Express.co.uk, October 27, 2020] The bill is spearheaded by Scottish Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf (right) the son of Pakistani immigrants, and it is tempting to assume he is merely importing traditional Islamic intolerance of blasphemy. But I think it is really just the religion of multiculturalism becoming more extreme.

Having consulted a Norwegian lawyer, who naturally wishes to remain anonymous, I can tell you that, according to the law, you can receive up to three years in prison if you “incite against” or “dehumanize” a transsexual “in public.” This is broadly defined to include in publications, online, or in public places.

However, up to one year in prison can be handed down to “a person who in the presence of others purposefully or with extreme carelessness expresses something that afflicts someone present.” [The legislation can be found, in Norwegian, here or as translated by Google here].

In other words, if you have upset a transsexual in a private—such as in someone’s house or at a private party, in front of witnesses who will testify that you did this—then you can receive one year in prison in Norway. If you upset a transsexual in public, you can get three years.

Anine Kierulf, an assistant professor of law at the University of Oslo, told the Reuters news agency that the bar for prosecution is high and that “There are a lot of very hateful things you can say about the protected groups” [Norway outlaws hate speech against trans people, by Rachel Savage, Reuters, November 25, 2020].

But what “dehumanizes” is extremely subjective and this law is dangerous, more so than similar laws with regard to homosexuals or ethnic minorities, because almost all transsexuals, with the exception of the minority who experience their feelings for as long as they can remember, have very serious psychological problems.

In other words, they’re nuts. And in Norway today—and in the West in general? —they call the shots.

A tiny minority of transsexuals literally do seem to have the “wrong body.” They will feel that they are girls for as long as they can remember. But, in most cases, these feelings manifest at adolescence, as sex researcher Ray Blanchard has shown [Varieties of autogynephilia and their relationship to gender dysphoria, by Ray Blanchard, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1993].

Prominent academics have garnered a large amount of evidence indicating that late onset transsexuality, especially to male-to-female late onset transsexuality, is a sexual fetish in which the transsexual is, in effect, sexually aroused by the idea of himself as a member of the opposite sex. In this sense, the transsexual is literally a Narcissist.

Indeed, it has been shown that “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”—in which you develop a bloated sense of self importance to cover up a fundamental sense of emptiness and despair—is very high among those who suffer from what is technically called “Gender Dysphoria.”

Consistent with this, it has been argued by one academic that the extraordinarily hostile and even violent reaction of transsexuals to scientists who do not accept that transsexuals are “born into the wrong body” is a classic example of “Narcissistic Rage”—when the Narcissist attempts to totally destroy anybody who forces him to question his own perfection; this self-perception being the only thing that stops him from sinking into the abyss of his own psychological emptiness [Shame and Narcissistic Rage in Autogynephilic Transsexualism, by Anne Lawrence, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2008].

Is this “dehumanizing”? Surely, a case could at least be made that it is: “You are saying we are Narcissists. This will make people hate and exclude us. It is implying we are immoral.”

Considering the documented Narcissistic Rage of transsexuals, one can imagine Norwegian prosecutors being pressured to take someone to court for stating such obvious scientific facts.

Thus Norway and Scotland’s laws will prevent people from having reasonable discussions about social issues where those discussions might lead them to question the current dominant Narrative. In fact, this seems to be the point of such laws.

But it gets worse. There is large body of evidence that male-to-female transsexuals are highly masculinized. They are more likely to be autistic, to have a hand shape that betokens high testosterone, to be male, and to heterosexual (rendering them “lesbians” once they “transition”).

This is because being highly masculinized is associated with autism, which is associated with focusing on objects, and thus with fetishism.

Autism is also associated with a weak understanding of who you are. Sufferers perceive the world as huge, swirling mass of detail without clear “boundaries” and this extends to how they see themselves, resulting in a weak sense of self, changes in identity, and an intense need for control [Sense of Self in Autism, by Michael Jawer, Psychology Today, August 7, 2014].

This is why autism correlates with anorexia, as the sufferer feels they at least “control” their body [Gender Dysphoria and Transgender Identity Is Associated with Physiological and Psychological Masculinization, by Edward Dutton & Guy Madison, Sexual Research and Social Policy, 2020].

Add Narcissism, also much higher among males, into the brew and you have transsexuality.

Could pointing these things out be “dehumanizing”?

Probably not, but it has, it seems, resulted in a highly emotional response claiming that the research “risk(s) causing serious harm to already-marginalized groups” by an academic called “Reubs J. Walsh” [“Masculine” Describes Gender Expressions, Not Neurobiologies: Response to Dutton and Madison (2020), by Reubs J. Walsh, Sexual Research and Social Policy, 2020] who is, of course, a male-to-female transsexual.

But what if we add that transsexuals seem to be genetically sick—more likely that “cis” people to develop cancer, arthritis, and even deafness? [Global health burden and needs of transgender populations: a review, by Sari Reisner et al., The Lancet, 2016].

This all implies that they are high in what scientists call “mutational load” . . . compared to “cis” people, in other words, they are “mutants.”

Arguably this is “dehumanizing,” but it remains a scientific fact. It probably wouldn’t lead to prosecution—but how can you be sure?

So, just when transsexuals come to prominence, Norway passes a law which potentially interferes with rational discussion of their nature. Worse still, it passes a law that potentially makes it a crime to make this point to a transsexual in private, or even to say them within earshot of a transsexual in private.

Transsexuals must be protected from hearing the scientific truth about themselves, lest it puncture the Narcissism which allows them to get through life.

Hopefully, the Norway which has stood so valiantly against globalism, in contrast to its anti-democratic neighbour Sweden, will wake up to the danger of this law and do something about it.

YouTube Suspends, Demonetizes One America News Network

Big tech censorship strikes conservatives again. This time the target is One America News Network which has been suspended for one week and been demonetized by YouTube for allegedly posting a video promoting a cure for the COVID-19 China coronavirus.

The action against OAN was first reported by Axios (excerpt):

Study: “Cancel Culture” Decimating Free Speech At World’s Leading Universities

A study by leading education focused think tank Civitas has found that free speech at the world’s leading universities is being eroded at an alarming rate owing to the rise of “cancel culture”.

The study found that within the past three years, more than 68 per cent of universities in the UK have seen free speech severely restricted, with academics unable to meaningfully discuss the nuances of issues such as race and gender.

The report notes that universities including Oxford, Cambridge and St Andrews, three of the world’s premiere institutions are among those that have fallen into a “red” category for free speech following instances of “no platforming” of scheduled speakers.

The study warns that the situation has gotten so severe that it requires government legislation to stop campus censorship at 48 universities, the equivalent of at least 35 per cent of institutions.

Civitas noted that a further 70 institutions, over half, placed into a “amber category”, have experienced restrictions on freedom of expression that should be looked into by university watchdog The Office for Students.

Researchers noted that freedom of speech “could be curbed by perceived transphobic episodes” in an alarming number of institutions, and that a “cancel culture” of open letters and or petitions from “external pressure groups” is eroding free speech.

Lead researcher Jim McConalogue noted “Our findings suggest that 86 per cent of universities faced either severe or moderate free speech restrictions which need to be addressed.”

“The fundamental issue must be dealt with because students and academics find themselves in educational institutions in which they cannot speak freely of the leading subjects of their day including on race, gender, the outcomes of elections, their views on religion, or on discrimination itself for fear of judgements that lead to eventual penalty or censorship,” McConalogue explained.

A previous Civitas report, published last month, found that “The racialisation of campus relations is driving a wedge between students and undermines any sense of our common humanity”.

The report also noted that there is no statistical evidence that ‘ethnicity’ determines the educational attainment of higher education students:

The latest Civitas study was undertaken before another prominent incident at Cambridge University, with dons rejecting ‘authoritarian guidelines’ from the university that decreed opinions should be “respectful of the diverse identities of others”.

Academics instead said they will promote ‘tolerance’ of differing opinions, and are backing amendments to make it more difficult for public speakers to be ‘no-platformed’ based on their beliefs and opinions.

In one particular incident, some students at Clare College, Cambridge, attempted to get a city councillor (who is also a porter at the college) fired for refusing to support a pro-trans motion.

The decimation of free speech at universities has become so severe that the Education Secretary Gavin Williamson announced earlier this year that stamping out ‘no platforming’ was a top priority.

Williamson has warned that legislation for new laws against censorship will have to be introduced if the trend continues.