If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Yesterday’s order by Brazilian Justice Alexandre de Moraes to halt the operations of the social media platform X has ignited international debate over free speech and governmental overreach. The order, which spans over 50 pages, cites concerns over the platform’s role in spreading what it deems anti-democratic speech and “misinformation” ahead of Brazil’s 2024 elections. US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioner Brendan Carr has voiced significant concerns over this move, describing it as a “broader blow against free speech.” We obtained a copy of the order for you here: Original, English. In his detailed ruling, Moraes explicitly references global political events such as Brexit and the 2016 election of President Donald Trump, describing them as “types of extreme ‘populist’ outcomes” that his decision aims to prevent. This linkage is critical to understanding the sweeping nature of the order, as Carr points out, “His opinion does not even try to hide it. He comes right out and points to Brexit and the 2016 election of President Trump as examples, in his telling, of the types of extreme ‘populist’ outcomes that he is attempting to avoid.” Carr argues that such explicit connections to international political events signify an attempt to control political discourse in Brazil, a stance he describes as “Orwellian” and “dangerous.” The Commissioner stressed, “The opposite is true. Free speech is democracy’s check on excessive government control. Censorship is the authoritarian’s dream.” Moraes defends the shutdown by labeling the free speech on X as “harmful” and “manipulative,” which could potentially influence the upcoming elections. He stated in the order, “diversity of political opinions expressed on the site might influence the people of Brazil ahead of their 2024 elections.” This assertion is part of what Carr criticizes as a “warmed over playbook of labeling political speech that runs contrary to his own orthodoxy as ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation.’” The decision has been controversial within Brazil as well, with several legal experts pointing out that it potentially conflicts with the Brazilian Constitution, which expressly prohibits censorship of a political or ideological nature. Yet, de Moraes contends that the urgent nature of the situation requires stringent measures, as highlighted in his decision: “[The platform] has been used to coordinate actions against Brazilian democratic institutions.” Carr concludes with a rallying cry for the preservation of free speech, invoking the words of late NY Times editor John Oakes: “Diversity of opinion is the lifeblood of democracy. The minute we begin to insist that everyone think the same way we think, our democratic way of life is in danger.” These words, according to Carr, underscore the stakes involved in this debate between freedom and control, a debate that is not just Brazilian but global. The escalation in Brazil marks a troubling development in the global discourse on free speech. By invoking threats to democracy to justify severe censorship, Justice de Moraes’s actions set a dangerous precedent. Such moves not only challenge the foundational principles of freedom of expression but also signal a potential erosion of democratic norms under the guise of protection. This stark imposition of control raises alarms not just in Brazil, but around the world, as it underscores the vulnerability of digital rights and freedoms to the whims of governmental power. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post From Brexit to Trump: Brazil’s Uses Rise of Populism To Justify X Ban appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Kamala: Ban Fracking? Me? No Way!

Popular wisdom has it is that there are two candidates on the election ballot this fall: former President Donald Trump for the GOP, and for the Democrats, Vice President Kamala Harris. In fact, there’s a third major candidate out there. That would be the mainstream media and its credibility. Last week in this space it was noted that Time magazine was in this headline from the New York Post:  Time cuts 22 staffers at magazine, cites ‘significant challenges’ across media industry The point made was that Time’s staff cuts were in reality a reflection that Time itself was losing credibility with stunts like its recent Harris cover, glorifying the Left’s favorite candidate of the moment. But it would be a huge mistake to believe this credibility problem is limited to Time. The hard fact is that the American people have the entire mainstream media under a magnifying glass, studying what is presented to them under the guise of objective fact. Take a look at the front page right here in NewsBusters to see these three headlines, two reflecting the coverage of the CNN Kamala Harris-Dana Bash interview and the third ABC’s take on former President Trump’s honoring the soldiers killed in Afghanistan during the disastrous Biden-Harris withdrawal episode. The first from colleague Alex Christy reads: MSNBC Hails Harris's 'Clever' Defense Of Fracking Flip-Flop  The second, by Jorge Bonilla, read:  The CNN-Harris Interview Wasn’t Actually An Interview, But a Debate Dress Rehearsal  And the third, with Curtis Houck’s look at the ABC/Trump/Arlington episode.  ABC Joins Smearing of Trump Over Arlington, Livid With Vance’s ‘Charged Language’ What all three have in common is putting the credibility of, in this case, CNN and ABC, under the microscope. And, to say the least, finding the credibility of both networks decidedly wanting. A small moment in the scheme of things. Yet in fact, it is a very large problem that haunts the mainstream media. For the next two months the media will be zeroing in on every word uttered by candidates Trump and Harris. The slightest twitch of an eyebrow, a laugh, the color of a tie (Trump’s) or pants suit (Harris) will make headlines. But unmentioned will be the fact that ever so quietly the American public will be reading these headlines or watching the televised images - and judging not the candidates but the media presenting the headlines and televised images. How did we get to the place where it's the media - not just the candidates - that are under such microscopic observation? The example I submit has been mentioned in this space long ago, but in the case of current events it is relevant to recall again. That example comes from the now very old but still relevant Pulitzer Prize winning book of the late political reporter Theodore H. White: The Making of the President 1960.  In which White writes this of the supposedly objective press corps covering then-Democratic presidential nominee Senator John F. Kennedy. Kennedy, of course, was running against GOP opponent, then-Vice President Richard Nixon. White wrote: By the last weeks of the campaign, those forty or fifty national correspondents who had followed Kennedy since the beginning of his electoral exertions into the November days had become more than a press corps - they had become his friends and, some of them, his most devoted admirers. When the (campaign) bus or the plane rolled  or flew through the night, they sang songs of their own composition about Mr. Nixon and the Republicans with the Kennedy staff and felt that they, too, were marching like soldiers of the lord to the New Frontier. And now? Now, a full 64 years later, this problem of a decidedly left-leaning media has metastasized to such a point that the descendants of those pressies covering their pal JFK in 1960 make not the slightest pretense to displaying their leftward bias in their coverage of just about any and everything. The difference now? That bias is no longer limited to a late night on a campaign bus or plane. The bias is well out there for all to see - with not a regret or apology in sight. And as a result, the media’s credibility has taken a massive hit.  So as the conclusion of the 2024 presidential campaign barrels down on us, it is crystal clear that in addition to candidates Trump and Harris, the credibility of the media is getting voted on as well.  And in terms of media credibility, it isn’t going well. 

This Is Low, Even for HER: Kamala Harris Tries Dunking on Trump Over Arlington, Gets WRECKED by Reality

Pete Buttigieg Touts 'the Future' of America's Passenger Rail System, Gets Ratioed Into Next Week

JD Vance Decimates Kamala's Vile Attempt to Attack Trump and Politicize Arlington Visit

Oh Really? Biden State Dept. Files No Charges for RTX Giving ChiComs Mil-Tech for US Aircraft 750 Times

Enjoying Your Long Weekend in New Jersey? Beware of Venomous Copperhead Snakes!

New research has established the parameters needed for inducing phantom sensations, enhancing technologies like virtual reality and devices for the hearing impaired. Individuals can experience the sense of touch without actual tactile stimulation. This phenomenon, known as “phantom sensation,” occurs when the nervous system perceives a tactile illusion that does not correspond to any real [...]

(HUMAN EVENTS) – Approximately 126 nations will attend the BRICS Municipal Conference in Russia in October. All countries have indicated interest in joining the bloc and abandoning the US dollar. The…