If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg defended Facebook’s early COVID-19 content moderation policies by invoking the often-quoted but inaccurate legal principle, “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” Zuckerberg cited this rationale to justify the platform’s censorship of certain information during the pandemic’s onset. More: Yes, you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater “COVID was the other big one where that was also very tricky because, you know, at the beginning, it was – you know, it’s like a legitimate public health crisis, you know, in the beginning. And it’s – you know, even people who were like the most ardent First Amendment defenders, the Supreme Court has this clear precedent. It’s like, all right, you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. There are times when, if there is an emergency, your ability to speak can temporarily be curtailed in order to get an emergency under control,” Zuckerberg said. This statement leans on a widely misunderstood legal argument. The phrase “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” originates from a 1919 Supreme Court opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenck v. United States, which was later overturned and criticized for its justification of speech suppression. Zuckerberg’s use of this outdated precedent is misleading and offers a flawed defense for restricting speech on Meta’s platforms. Zuckerberg elaborated on his stance, expressing initial trust in government and health authorities: “So I was sympathetic to that at the beginning of COVID. It seemed like, OK, you have this virus. It seems like it’s killing a lot of people. I don’t know. We didn’t know at the time how dangerous it was going to be. So at the beginning, it kind of seemed like, OK, we should give a little bit of deference to the government and the health authorities on how we should play this.” However, Zuckerberg acknowledged the shifting narratives from health officials, which complicated content censorship decisions. “But when it went from, you know, two weeks to flatten the curve to, you know, in like – in the beginning, it was like, OK, there aren’t enough masks. Masks aren’t that important. To then it’s like, oh, no, you have to wear a mask. And, you know, all the – like, everything was shifting around. I – it’s become very difficult to kind of follow.” The discredited legal metaphor has drawn criticism from free speech advocates. Such justification enables tech giants to overstep in moderating content, especially in moments of crisis when diverse perspectives are most crucial. Equating speech to violence or danger is an easy excuse to censor controversial speech. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Mark Zuckerberg Falsely Claims “You Can’t Yell ‘Fire’ in a Crowder Theater” To Justify Covid Censorship appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In a candid interview on The Joe Rogan Experience, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg criticized the Biden administration’s approach to social media content moderation during the COVID-19 pandemic, suggesting that government pressure to censor certain content “violated the law.” Zuckerberg reflected on the role that platforms like Facebook played in moderating COVID-19 information, acknowledging that his company often deferred to government guidance when it came to implementing censorship policies. However, he expressed regret over how this deference contributed to suppressing truthful content. “I don’t think that the pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal,” Zuckerberg stated. He elaborated, emphasizing the distinction between private companies’ content moderation policies and government-imposed censorship. “The First Amendment doesn’t apply to companies in our content moderation. It’s more of an American ethos about how we think that best dialogue is carried out. But the First Amendment does apply to the government. That’s the whole point, is the government is not allowed to censor this stuff.” Zuckerberg detailed instances where members of the Biden administration pressured Meta employees with aggressive tactics. “Having people in the administration calling up the guys on our team and yelling at them and cursing and threatening repercussions if we don’t take down things that are true is like—it’s pretty bad,” he said. Joe Rogan responded, “It sounds illegal,” to which Zuckerberg agreed, stating, “I think that they had a kind of goal that they thought was in the interests of the country, and the way they went about it, I think violated the law.” However, despite Zuckerberg’s acknowledgment of government pressure, Meta notably did not participate in the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, which later evolved into Murthy v. Missouri. This lawsuit challenged the Biden administration’s coercion of social media companies to suppress certain viewpoints. Testimony from Meta about the administration’s pressure could have significantly strengthened the case, especially after the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs, the censored victims, lacked standing. If Meta, as the direct recipient of censorship demands from the Biden administration, had become a plaintiff, the case could have been bolstered. Not only did Meta not go to court to challenge these censorship demands, but it was revealed that Meta even developed a special portal for the White House to flag content for removal. This direct channel facilitated the suppression of lawful speech. Even after recognizing the legal and ethical issues, Meta continued to censor truthful information. Additionally, Meta has faced ongoing criticism for its decision to ban former President Donald Trump from its platforms and for censoring the New York Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop prior to the 2020 election. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Mark Zuckerberg Calls Biden Administration’s Pressure to Censor COVID-19 Content “Illegal” appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Biden: Kamala Coulda Won, You Know

The cast of CBS Saturday Morning was distraught by the possibility that, just as Ronald Reagan removed Jimmy Carter’s solar panels, Donald Trump may “stall progress” in developing infrastructure for electric vehicles and put economics ahead of "the good of the environment." During a recorded report, transportation correspondent Kris Van Cleave lamented, “With the help of manufacturer incentives and tax rebates of up to $7,500, EVs now account for nearly one in ten new car sales, but 2025 comes with uncertainty.”     Van Cleave further warned that “The pace of EV sales have slowed. President-elect Donald Trump is pledging to roll back emissions standards, potentially cut money for building a national charging infrastructure, or end government subsidies for EVs, including those tax rebates, a move supported by Tesla CEO Elon Musk.” In a clip, Trump was shown declaring that “On day one, I end the all-electric mandate and I'm a fan of electric cars [jump cut] Can you imagine they want to almost immediately go to all electric. And we don't have enough electric to take care of ourselves.” Later, after Van Cleave’s report, co-host Dana Jacobson wished people would put their economic concerns to the side and just get with the EV program, “And one of the interesting things with this is also the infrastructure out there. Forget the other economics, you've got to have infrastructure of charging throughout, and you keep seeing that coming. If that continues, you wonder if people will put some of the economics aside for the good of the environment.” Fellow co-host Michelle Miller agreed, “That's the point, and it reminds me of Jimmy Carter putting the solar panels on the White House.” After Jacobson recalled “that they later removed,” Miller continued, "That they later removed and how changing policy from one administration to the next can either stall progress in some people's eyes or -- we'll see.” Of course, Donald Trump is not going to remove anything. CBS’s worst-case scenario is that the government will no longer subsidize the manufacturing of or incentivize the purchasing of EVs or building of charging stations. Meanwhile, the Biden Administration kept getting in its own way on issuing EV charging station grants with bureaucratic DEI red tape. Here is a transcript for the January 11 show: CBS Saturday Morning 1/11/2025 8:39 AM ET KRIS VAN CLEAVE: With the help of manufacturer incentives and tax rebates of up to $7,500, EVs now account for nearly one in ten new car sales, but 2025 comes with uncertainty. The pace of EV sales have slowed. President-elect Donald Trump is pledging to roll back emissions standards, potentially cut money for building a national charging infrastructure, or end government subsidies for EVs including those tax rebates, a move supported by Tesla CEO Elon Musk. DONALD TRUMP: On day one, I end the all-electric mandate and I'm a fan of electric cars [jump cut] Can you imagine they want to almost immediately go to all electric. And we don't have enough electric to take care of ourselves. … DANA JACOBSON: And one of the interesting things with this is also the infrastructure out there. Forget the other economics, you've got to have infrastructure of charging throughout, and you keep seeing that coming. If that continues, you wonder if people will put some of the economics aside for the good of the environment. MICHELLE MILLER: That's the point, and it reminds me of Jimmy Carter putting the solar panels on the White House. JACOBSON: That they later removed. MILLER: That they later removed and how changing policy from one administration to the next can either stall progress in some people's eyes or -- we'll see. JACOBSON: Good point, yeah.

Elizabeth Warren's the Latest Dem Bringing a 'New Level of Ghoulish Behavior' to Fundraising for L.A.

Members of the House SALT Caucus, who have threatened to hold back from supporting President-elect Donald Trump's agenda unless the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap isn't raised, are meeting with him Saturday to discuss their concerns.

The argument over banning the video-sharing platform TikTok, which the Supreme Court is currently presiding over, is a "First Amendment case for 170 million Americans," Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told Fox News on Friday.

Incoming border czar Tom Homan revealed sweeping plans to tackle undocumented immigration under President-elect Donald Trump, including mass deportations, workplace enforcement raids, and efforts to shut down the perilous Darien Gap migration route.

SACRAMENTO, CA — With Governor Gavin Newsom facing withering criticism over his preparations for wildfires, the Delta Smelt Fish Association hosted a press conference to reiterate their support for…

Home»Commentary»Zuckerberg Claims Victim Status – But He’s Actually Been The One Attacking (Video) Suzanne Hamner 2025-01-11 There are things that are believable; things that are questionable; things…