It is well known that US laws have no extraterritorial application unless stated explicitly or in rare cases when “the contrary affirmative intention of Congress is clearly expressed.” Neither applies to Sec. 230. Continue reading Section 230 does not apply abroad
Google Removed Key Papers and Videos on HCQ
Google blocked access to An Effective Treatment for Coronavirus (COVID-19) by James M. Todaro, MD, and Gregory J. Rigano, dated by March 13, 2020. This paper was widely credited (blamed by the Fake News Media) for proposing chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as an effective treatment against COVID-19. (This was reported by ReclaimTheNet on March 25, 2020). How can someone rationalize removing information about a possible cure, amid a global pandemic? Are there still humans in charge at Google?
Google’s YouTube also removed the Didier Raoult’s presentation of his HCQ+AZM treatment, published on YouTube on March 16, and embedded in the website of the medical institute which he heads! The video was removed by March 29 with the message “Video unavailable. This video contains content from Canal Plus, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.” It had accumulated more than 1.4 million views before that. The video is restored now. It contains no Canal Plus (a French TV company owned by Vivendi), copyright, logo, name, or anything that can be mistaken for its content. Canal Plus is a French TV company owned by Vivendi. Even if it had any rights in it and submitted a take down notice (neither is likely), displaying it was fair use. Continue reading Google Removed Key Papers and Videos on HCQ
How Obamanet Created “Masters of the Universe”
2022-12-01: Obamanet is likely the worst First Amendment violation of the last 150 years. From Obamanet-2010 : “Purchasing a higher quality of termination service for one’s own Internet traffic, though, is not speech…” (p. 59221). This is a Marxist gobbledygook. Purchasing Internet bandwidth (“termination service” in the FCC words) is like purchasing paper and printing press services at the time of the Bill of Rights. The freedom of the press is in the First Amendment. (A longer quote: “AT&T and NCTA argue that open Internet rules interfere with the speech rights of content and application providers to the extent they are prevented from paying broadband providers for higher quality service. Purchasing a higher quality of termination service for one’s own Internet traffic, though, is not speech …” – added on 2024-01-14)
2022-11-04: Added sources: Reuters and Statista, 2014. Minor corrections.
2020-03-01: wireless data costs ($90B) are added to fixed broadband costs ($50B), yielding $140B, redistributed by Obamanet in favor of Big Tech annually, starting in 2015 and likely growing. Continue reading How Obamanet Created “Masters of the Universe”
Google 2022 Elections Interference
November 8, 2022, update:
For voting related searches (such as ‘poll place‘) Google places at the top of the search results links the same Democrats-supporting group – Democracy Works. VIP is its project. The result is NOT marked as an ad.
As a state actor, Google is not allowed to do that.
Big Tech censorship under color of DMCA 512(g) is illegal
On March 16, 2020, Didier Raoult, one of the world’s leading experts on infectious diseases and the director of the medical institute Méditerranée Infection (Marseille, France), reported at a scientific conference that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin rapidly cleans viral loads in patients with COVID-19. On the same day, the Institute published the presentation on its YouTube channel and embedded the video in its website. Over the night of March 28–29, Google’s YouTube removed this presentation! YouTube showed the message, “Video unavailable. This video contains content from Canal Plus, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.”
Continue reading Big Tech censorship under color of DMCA 512(g) is illegal
DC Courts v. Fair Trial for J6P
The J6 defendants’ right for trial outside of the DC is grounded in the First Amendment. The First Amendment preserves the right of citizens “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. That includes traveling in person from their home states to the DC, the current Seat of the Government. Subjecting citizens exercising this right to a trial by a jury consisting of the officials of the Government, their associates, contractors, clients, relatives etc. obviously violates this right.
Yet, this is what is done to the J6 defendants, almost all of whom are not residents of the DC, an arrived to the DC with the only purpose: “peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. Presumption of innocence protects them against accusation that hey did not assemble peaceably.
Thus, trials of J6 defendants must be moved out of the DC. Continue reading DC Courts v. Fair Trial for J6P
J6 Repression Statistics
Democrats call the events of January 6, 2021, an “insurrection.” One would expect that the Democrat DOJ would move quickly against real or imaginary “insurrectionists” and would be done with this business quickly. Nothing prevented them. Mr. Biden appointed 1,136 government officials on his first half-day in the office, not bothering with the Senate’s “Advice and Consent.”
The graph of weekly number of new J6 cases, opened by the DOJ in DC. The highest number – 70 cases – was on the week ending on January 23, 2021. Continue reading J6 Repression Statistics
How Senator Mark Warner Coerced Big Tech
Senator Mark Warner (D) has been pressuring Big Tech to censor Republicans since 2018, at least. After the Demsurrection of January 6, 2021, Senator Warner also pressured Big Tech, mainly Facebook, to retain personal and private communication of its users, related to the J6 events. Facebook complied, and provided troves of its users’ private data to DC prosecutors to cherry pick from.
Recent discovery of emails, in which the Biden-Harris administration tells Facebook what speech to censor on its platform, has caused a scandal. Both BHA and Big Tech are going to deny the coercion. But such coercion was in plain view since 2018. Democrat legislators, Attorneys General, and other government officials have coerced Big Tech to censor opponents of Democrat agendas, by threats of adverse legislation and/or regulation.
The full report (2,450 words): Mark-Warner-Coercing-BigTech-since-2018.pdf Continue reading How Senator Mark Warner Coerced Big Tech
DC Jury v. Fair Trial
Attorneys for J6 defendants raised the issue that their defendants cannot receive fair trials in the DC, due to the partisan preferences of the DC jury pool. 92% of DC voters voted for Biden, and only 5.4% voted for Trump. The DOJ objected. For example, in USA vs Strand (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1:21-cr-00085-CRC), prosecution cited[1] a DC Circuit of Appeals decision from 1975 as saying that the DC jurors pool was ok for a fair trial for Nixon associates, despite overwhelming majority of DC votes cast for Democrats. The DC presidential votes in In the DC Presidential elections of 1968 and 1972, Democrats (D) received 81.8% and 78.1% of the DC vote, respectively.[2]
The prosecution argument is wrong. Current DC bias in favor of Democrats, measured by the voting results, is incomparable with what existed in that time, circa 1974.
While 82% and 92% may seem like close numbers, the rate of D:R supporters is drastically different. Circa 1974, that rate was 4:1; now it is 19:1. Today, a DC jury is likely (53%) to have 12 Democrats and no Republicans. Continue reading DC Jury v. Fair Trial
J6 Drafts
The January 6 damage to the Capitol building is estimated at $1.5 Million! This is a tiny amount for such a big and delicate building. This proves that there was almost no attempt to defend Congress. The USCP, overseen by Nancy Pelosi and commanded by Democrat favorites, allowed tourists, protesters, and attackers into the building. Then it used their presence as a pretext to interrupt the Senate and House sessions, which were hearing objections to the Arizona slate.
On January 6, inside the Capitol: “Again, any of the violent actors, and most certainly the dumbstruck tourists, could have been stopped in their tracks had officers produced their weapons. As it happened, before my own eyes, police did not draw their weapons until reports of “shots fired” were received over their radios. (In actuality, the ONE shot fired at Ashli Babbitt.)” – TPC-2 (The Practical Constitutionalist) Continue reading J6 Drafts