If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton lawsuit case file has received an amicus brief straight from the Biden-Harris White House, and the gist is an attempt to stretch the First Amendment to cover age verification laws, digital ID laws. The Department of Justice (DoJ) seems to be using the opportunity to make its voice heard in the case involving the Texas law (HB 1181), in order to pave the way for broader use of online age verification going forward. The amicus brief thus talks about such laws (plural), as it urges the court to make it clear that the First Amendment “does not necessarily foreclose appropriately tailored age-verification laws.” We obtained a copy of the brief for you here. Rights groups, on the other hand, want the Supreme Court to declare HB 1181 unconstitutional, as it requires adult users to provide personal data to prove they are not minors, which removes their online anonymity and creates privacy and security risks. The unconstitutionality of HB 1181 as seen by this side in the arguments is related to the First Amendment and the right of adults to access sexual content. The law, meanwhile, was passed to prevent minors from accessing online material that is designated as sexual or harmful (and makes up one-third or more of a site’s content). The legislation mandates age verification and provides for a civil penalty. The Fifth Circuit of Appeals supported the law, and now it is up to the US Supreme Court to decide. The DoJ amicus brief comes after those filed by the likes of the digital rights group EFF, several associations, and think tanks, who took a stance against the law in favor of free speech. The brief filed by the government states that the case is about the standard of constitutionality of the law, and notes that Congress previously passed similar laws – and “may legislate in this area again.” For this reason, the document adds, the United States (DoJ) “has a substantial interest in the development of the applicable First Amendment principles.” The argument made here is that the Court of appeals made a mistake when it applied “only rational-basis review,” and that the Supreme Court should send the case back so that proper standards can be applied. But the brief goes on to state: “In so doing, however, the court should make clear that the First Amendment does not prohibit Congress and the states from adopting appropriately tailored measures to prevent children from accessing harmful sexual material on the internet.” The DoJ goes on to argue that this could potentially include age verification requirements “analogous to those that have long been applied to the distribution of such material in the physical world.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Biden-Harris DOJ Urges the Supreme Court To Pave the Way for Increased Online Age Verification Digital ID Laws appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In case you thought 2021 was just about ever-shifting “expert advice,” think again. Thanks to America First Legal, we now know that behind the chaotic public health messaging, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Facebook were playing a little game of “whack-a-mole” with your freedom of speech. Today, new onboarding documents were unearthed, which shows just how cozy Facebook got with the CDC. The social media giant wasn’t merely policing what it thought was “misinformation” on COVID and vaccines; it was operating as the de facto enforcement arm of the US government’s thought control initiative. The Biden-Harris Administration, while trumpeting their “fight for truth,” had essentially deputized Facebook to clean up the messy world of online discourse. And who decides what’s messy? Apparently, anyone with a .gov email address. From “Misinformation” to Censorship: The Slippery Slope Let’s rewind to 2021, the peak of the pandemic drama. The public was dealing with a mutating narrative on what constituted “the truth.” In other words, what was factual one week might be misinformation the next, depending on who you asked—or more accurately, who was in power. At the time, the administration faced heavy criticism for overseeing a clampdown on dissent. Social media platforms, like Facebook, took on the noble mantle of censoring anything that didn’t align with the latest CDC talking points. One day it was, “Don’t wear masks,” and the next, “You must wear two.” If you were quick enough to quote the CDC’s latest declaration, congratulations, you won a reprieve from the online guillotine. But heaven forbid you posted a month-old statement—down came the banhammer. The First Amendment? Ah yes, that pesky little thing. It felt like an afterthought in the administration’s relentless quest to manage the pandemic, or rather, manage the narrative about the pandemic. Facebook’s VIP Censorship Lane And now, thanks to these documents, we get a peek behind the velvet ropes. Apparently, Facebook wasn’t just taking public health directives from the CDC; it built a slick “end-to-end workflow” tailored to the White House’s censorship needs. Imagine a fast lane for speech suppression, with Facebook playing the role of an eager bouncer outside the digital club, ensuring no “misinformation” slipped through. Even better, Facebook’s system featured an exclusive portal—imagine a VIP entrance at a nightclub, except instead of celebrities, it was for government and law enforcement officials. This was the red-carpet treatment for anyone in the Biden Administration looking to silence critics and manage dissent. And, of course, Rob Flaherty, then a rising star in the Biden camp and now a senior staffer for the Harris campaign, was at the heart of the effort, barking orders at Facebook to tighten the leash. The timing is almost poetic, isn’t it? The very people who were busy “building back better” were also busy building an infrastructure to muzzle public discourse. The system could handle up to twenty censorship requests simultaneously. We’re talking turbo-charged suppression of whatever Uncle Bob posted about vaccines this week. The government’s ability to monitor, muzzle, and “ensure compliance” was never more streamlined. What makes this truly remarkable (or terrifying, depending on your perspective) is how this system essentially sidestepped traditional email communications. You know, the stuff that’s usually subject to public oversight. What a relief—no more pesky public records to clog the machinery of control. Each censorship request was given a shiny new ticket number, so the government could track Facebook’s obedience to the letter. Now that’s what I call accountability—just not the kind you might be thinking of. Digital Muzzle: Removing Content One “Misinformation” Post at a Time The documents reveal the juicy details: Facebook wasn’t just censoring anything. The platform stuck to content that the CDC deemed “dangerous.” And because no censorship operation is complete without a big helping of irony, all of this was done in strict adherence to Facebook’s so-called “community standards.” You know, the same standards that claim to protect free expression and facilitate dialogue. Oh, the contradictions. The timing of these revelations dovetails beautifully with fresh evidence that the UK government’s policies had a not-so-subtle hand in shaping the Biden-Harris administration’s heavy-handed censorship approach. As if that weren’t enough, Mark Zuckerberg—Facebook’s reigning tech overlord—finally admitted that the platform’s censorship practices weren’t just altruistic acts of public service. No, they were the direct result of pressure from the White House. The whole process, as laid out in the documents, started with granting access to CDC employees—yes, the same public servants entrusted with your health—using their government-issued email addresses. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. By using this specialized portal, and not email, the government could skirt those pesky federal record-keeping laws. FOIA requests? Public oversight? Forget about it. The new system made sure government actions were neatly tucked away in proprietary software.   The portal itself was a bureaucrat’s dream. Authorized government users could toss multiple links into the censorship abyss, and even add little comments to each request to really personalize the experience. Every time a link was submitted for deletion, the system kindly acknowledged receipt and handed over a reference number—because if there’s anything censorship needs, it’s transparency. And by transparency, I mean the illusion that this whole process was anything but shadowy. Gene Hamilton, Executive Director of America First Legal, stated, “These documents show–definitively–the architecture behind the systems that political appointees and governmental bureaucrats used to unconstitutionally censor the free speech of Americans online. The right to speak–to even question authority–is so fundamental to our national identity, yet in the name of a public health crisis, Biden Administration officials worked with major companies to silence dissent. The American people need to review these documents and understand just how far our leaders in Washington went to violate the First Amendment to our Constitution.” This release, by exposing the mechanisms behind this censorship, underscores the conflict between governmental control and constitutional freedoms, a balance that remains a cornerstone of democratic governance. Gene Hamilton, the Executive Director of America First Legal, didn’t mince words when summing up the scale of this operation. “These documents show–definitively–the architecture behind the systems that political appointees and governmental bureaucrats used to unconstitutionally censor the free speech of Americans online,” he said in a statement. And architecture is the right word for it. This was a meticulously constructed machine, designed to stifle speech and ensure that only “approved” voices made it through the filter. Hamilton underscored what should have been obvious from the start: “The right to speak–to even question authority–is so fundamental to our national identity.” The fact that this right was casually tossed aside in the name of public health should be setting off alarms in every corner of the country. But instead, we got the White House working hand-in-glove with major corporations like Facebook to silence dissent. Think about that for a second: the government, under the guise of protecting us from a crisis, managed to convince Big Tech to do its dirty work—effectively muzzling the very people it’s supposed to serve. How Far Did They Go? It’s a chilling thought—just how far are these so-called leaders willing to go when it comes to silencing opposition? According to Hamilton, pretty damn far. “The American people need to review these documents and understand just how far our leaders in Washington went to violate the First Amendment to our Constitution.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Facebook Built a VIP Censorship Pipeline For The White House appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Is the Looming Port Strike the October Surprise?

Over the last 48 hours, ABC and CNN have repeatedly hyped a supposed six-figure bounty placed on President Trump’s head. While even the vehemently anti-Trump MSNBC avoided sharing specifics about the bounty so as not “to encourage any sort of potential violence,” ABC and CNN apparently held no such reservations, eagerly mentioning it a combined 21 times in just two days. Background The bounty was mentioned in a letter allegedly written by attempted Trump assassin Ryan Routh. According to federal prosecutors, Routh dropped off a box of belongings at an acquaintance’s house several months before his attempt on Trump’s life, and it was only after Routh was arrested that the acquaintance found the letter inside. It appears Routh intended for this missive to be some sort of failsafe in the event that he was unsuccessful, as evidenced by the following line: This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump but I failed you. I tried my best and gave it all the gumption I could muster. It is up to you now to finish the job; and I will offer $150,000 to whomever can complete the job. The Numbers MRC analysts examined a combination of Nexis transcripts and SnapStream recordings of all regular daytime coverage on liberal broadcast (ABC, CBS, and NBC) and cable (CNN and MSNBC) networks on Monday and Tuesday. Between 6:00 a.m. EDT on September 23 and 11:59 p.m. EDT the following evening, September 24, the bounty was explicitly discussed a total of 24 times. A whopping 87 percent (21 times) of those mentions came from just ABC and CNN. CNN discussed the $150,000 bounty 14 times, while ABC mentioned it a combined 7 times across its regular weekday shows and live streaming service, ABC News Live. Notably, ABC also was the only of the three broadcast networks to offer details about the bounty on its flagship evening newscast. By contrast, the bounty received only one mention from CBS and two from NBC. Both networks kept the details out of their weekday morning and evening shows, instead only discussing the supposed six-figure reward on their streaming services (CBS News 24/7 and NBC News NOW). As NewsBusters has demonstrated on numerous occasions, ABC News is far and away the most anti-Trump of the broadcast networks. Likewise, CNN’s hatred of Trump is no secret. Given the extreme slant of these two networks’ coverage, one should reasonably expect the bulk of their viewership to have a rather low opinion of Trump. Why, then, are ABC and CNN so intent on alerting their viewers that some unhinged individual is offering $150,000 for Trump’s head? Their consistent recitation of this part of the story is, at best, wildly reckless. At worst, it could be seen as deliberate incitement. Playing With Fire Surprisingly, MSNBC demonstrated how an outlet might responsibly cover Routh’s letter without unnecessarily planting ideas in some crazy viewer’s head. During the September 23 Andrea Mitchell Reports, NBC News law enforcement correspondent Tom Winter gave a detailed report about the ominous missive, but refused to provide any specifics about the bounty: “There’s a call to action and some other things in the letter, which we’re not going to share, because there’s no reason to encourage any sort of potential violence.”   To be clear, nobody is criticizing any of these outlets merely for covering Routh’s letter. If anything, one might expect left-leaning news organizations to avoid reminding Americans about the latest Trump assassination attempt. And indeed, if any of the major TV news networks had skipped the letter entirely, we would be criticizing their silence. Rather, it’s the numerous, detailed mentions of the bounty specifically that make ABC and CNN’s reporting so irresponsible. If you were, for example, a reporter for a news outlet that routinely whipped its audience into a Trump-hating frenzy, you’d probably want to tread very carefully when covering an alleged six-figure reward for his head. And given Routh’s apparent affinity for the kind of messaging that ABC and CNN offer, it would behoove these networks to distance themselves from him as much as possible. But for whatever reason, that’s not what they’re doing.

The expertise and opinions of celebrities are as valid as a drunk spewing politics as he’s falling off his stool at a local burp and fart bar. They’ve been lecturing us for years. When will they finally get the memo that Americans outside their elitist class are too busy trying to put food on the table to care about whatever woke cause they shove down our throats? Tune into this episode of “Woke of the Weak” to watch some of our celebrities’ most insufferable moments.

Tremont City Police Chief Chad Duncan says Springfield, Ohio, has fallen into "absolute turmoil" since the arrival of approximately 20,000 Haitian nationals.Blaze News' Julio Rosas returned to Tremont City, located approximately eight miles outside Springfield, this week to speak with local officials and residents to learn their perspective on the impact of the new arrivals. 'They're allowing them to drive.'Duncan told Rosas that Springfield has descended into lawlessness and that he is concerned it is spreading to nearby towns, including Tremont City."You've got a city that's in absolute turmoil," he said, referring to Springfield. "Everybody's against everybody."One of Duncan's most significant concerns is the increase in traffic accidents caused by Haitian drivers, who often are not licensed to operate vehicles, he said. He told Blaze News that Tremont City law enforcement is doing everything possible to crack down on the potentially deadly crashes but noted that Springfield appears to be protecting Haitian nationals from facing any real consequences for reckless driving."People that shouldn't be driving, they're out there and they're allowing them to drive," Duncan remarked. Duncan told Rosas about a recent traffic stop he conducted involving a Haitian national."He didn't even have a license," he said.According to Duncan, the driver was speeding through Tremont City, going 44 mph in a 25 mph zone.He said it was the second time over a two-week period that he pulled the driver over and had the individual's car towed.Rosas asked Duncan whether Springfield would have towed the vehicle in that instance."No," he replied.Duncan speculated that Springfield may be softening or avoiding reckless driving consequences for Haitian nationals to protect them from deportation."If you get two misdemeanors, you are subject to be deported," he told Blaze News.Duncan added that his access to Springfield's police radio frequency has been cut off since the city started attracting national attention over the impacts of the immigrant crisis."We were able to hear them on the radio. They have decided to go silent. We don't know what's going on in the city," Duncan said.When asked why he believes the city has made it hard to communicate, Duncan speculated that the Springfield police turned off the ability for others to hear their radio communications to obstruct any outside monitoring of their actions and, thereby, having to answer for those actions.Duncan noted that there was reportedly a recent threat at a school that he was unable to hear over the radio."I just caught wind of it from another chief that's right next to the city," he said. Duncan explained that the city's leaders should have handled the influx of Haitian nationals differently."If they had taken the time, instead of worrying about the elites lining their pockets, and just took the time, this could have went so much smoother and been so much more beneficial to everybody involved," Duncan stated.When asked how he believes the situation will turn out, he responded, "I really don't know what the end result will be. But right now, it's not good."Blaze News attempted to reach out to the Springfield Police Division for comment multiple times, but the department did not answer its non-emergency phone line, which provides no option to leave a voicemail. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Seattle Police Department will no longer send out patrol units in response to security alarm calls unless they are accompanied by "supporting evidence."On September 13, Seattle interim police Chief Sue Rahr issued a letter explaining that the department regularly receives a barrage of calls from alarm monitoring companies, and only a tiny fraction of them correspond to actual criminal activity. The vast majority of cases are simply accidental sensor trips or equipment malfunctions, she said.'There is a better way.'To demonstrate, Rahr claimed that SPD received 13,000 such alarm calls for businesses and residences in 2023 alone. Of them, fewer than 4% "were confirmed to have a crime associated with them that resulted in an arrest or report being written," she wrote.Staffing shortages have forced SPD officials to rethink their response protocols. Beginning October 1, SPD will dispatch a patrol unit only when "supporting evidence" — including audio, video, eyewitnesses, and/or a concomitant panic alarm — indicates that a crime is underway."With depleted resources we cannot prioritize a patrol response when there is a very low probability that criminal activity is taking place," Rahr said."Our highest priority is responding to violent in-progress incidents that threaten the safety of our communities."Rahr's letter clarified that the new policy will not alter existing licensing and reporting requirements for alarm system monitoring companies as defined in the city municipal code.The new policy will affect approximately 75,000 alarm sites, KOMO reported.Representatives from some alarm companies expressed dismay about the policy change, claiming it will especially endanger children and businesses such as banks, pharmacies, and gun stores that carry items coveted by burglars. They were also frustrated that they have been given so little time to prepare for the change."The verified response policy has been tried and rejected numerous times including by cities such as Dallas, Texas, and San Jose, California. It goes against best practices established through a collaborative effort by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriff’s Association," said a statement from Washington Alarm."Our industry supports the police and agrees that they need to conserve resources. But there is a better way."Steve Autio of ADI Global Distribution agreed that the new policy will "make the city even less safe."He also wishes the department had reached out to the alarm companies before sending the letter. "We can work together with the police department to come up with other ideas," Autio told My Northwest.Members of some companies are expected to attend city council meetings this week to voice their concerns.H/T: The Post MillennialLike Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Last week on September 17, Sean "Diddy" Combs, commonly known in the music industry as P. Diddy or Puff Daddy, was arrested and charged with a slew of crimes, including sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution. The rapper and producer is widely being referred to as the Epstein of Hollywood because, like Epstein, Diddy threw massive sex parties during which he forced guests to engage in sexual activities with prostitutes while being filmed. Now that Diddy has been denied bail, other Hollywood stars are making suspicious moves, many of them going on a “social media scrubbing spree.” “Blaze News Tonight’s” Jill Savage and “Fearless” host Jason Whitlock discuss the situation. Currently, Diddy is “locked up in a Brooklyn penitentiary where he reportedly was put on suicide watch,” says Jill. Naturally, many are wondering whether or not Diddy will “wind up being Epsteined.” The other big question is: Who are his co-conspirators? Like the mysterious Epstein list, certainly there are a number of elites on the list of those complicit in Diddy’s crimes, but who are they? While no others have been arrested yet, “there are Hollywood heavyweights who are apparently spooked.” One of those people is singer, rapper, and producer Usher, whose “posts vanished off X, only for him to make the excuse later that he was hacked.” Another Hollywood star who scrubbed her social media accounts is punk singer P!nk. Apparently, several of her posts “were 86ed,” says Jill. However, “one of the creepiest moments in the saga” actually occurred back in 2016 when Usher was on “The Howard Stern Show” and recounted his wild days living at Diddy’s. When Usher was just 14, he was apparently sent off to “Puffy Flavor Camp” to “see the lifestyle.” “There were very curious things taking place,” Usher said in the interview before listing specific celebrities he saw at Diddy’s infamous parties, including Biggie Smalls, Lil’ Kim, Craig Mack, Faith Evans, the band Jodeci, and Mary J. Blige, among others. Jason has known that the rap music industry is corrupt to the core for decades now. “It's been my argument for many years — and it's all come to fruition — that the music industry is satanic; it's a sex cult, and as it relates to hip-hop, its role is to instill, impart, make the culture more nihilistic, and Diddy is at the head of that,” he explains. Now that Diddy has been officially arrested and charged, Jason says that “a lot of people should be nervous — a lot of Hollywood people, a lot of athletes, a lot of the A-list celebrities.” Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson can’t help but be suspicious about the timing, however. “Why is he getting in trouble now?” he asks, noting that illegal things happen at debaucherous celebrity parties all the time. According to Jason, Diddy’s downfall is a result of his cockiness. “Diddy started suing people and started challenging the establishment that put him in place,” says Jason, adding that Diddy mistakenly assumed that he was equal to the people who installed him at the top of the music industry. “[He] thought, ‘Hey, I'm a billionaire; I'm the equal of these other people that installed me,’ and the people that installed Diddy are saying, ‘No, you're not; you have a role and a place to stay in; you've gone outside of that, and we will put you down like a sick dog,'” he explains. “Diddy was a tool to bait people to come to his house and participate in things that they would put on camera, and now you have blackmail information on politicians, other celebrities, influencers,” says Jason. “You wonder why all the Hollywood influencer celebrity people think the exact same thing — Kamala Harris is the greatest person in the world … she should be president of the United States, and Donald Trump is racist. You can't convince me that everybody in Hollywood thinks that. They think that because they have no other choice but to think that,” he says. “What’s the next phase? Where do we go from here?” asks Jill. To hear Jason’s answer, watch the clip above. Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Scott Jennings Had Another Trump vs. Harris Reality Check That Made CNN Panelists Fume

FLASHBACK: Stephanie Ruhle's 2023 Softball Interview With Biden Tells Us EXACTLY How She'll Handle Kamala