Countering the liberal media call to censor conservatives, the former president came out swinging against Chinese-style censorship on Big Tech platforms and took a stand for free speech online. “At a high-dollar fundraiser on Thursday” former President Barack Obama attempted to bridge the gap and ease the tensions between rising Democratic Party leaders and Big Tech companies, particularly amidst recent controversies over “misinformation,” censorship and free speech, Vox Recode reported.



Twitter appears to be doing all it can to protect those participating in the impeachment inquiry from public criticism. Liberal news outlet BuzzFeed noted that the phrase “I hired Donald Trump to fire people like Yovanovitch” was trending on the morning of Nov. 15.



Accuse liberal billionaire George Soros of impropriety and you could be accused of anti-Semitism and be de-platformed. At least that’s what the Open Society Foundations is allegedly saying should happen to lawyer and Fox News guest Joe diGenova.



“Ignorance is strength.” That’s one of the three infamous “slogans of the Party” featured in George Orwell’s novel 1984, in which Big Brother edits the news to manipulate the populace. Well, it was that kind of authoritarian action CNN shills S.E. Cupp and Brian Stelter were celebrating, during Saturday’s edition of Unfiltered, when it came to social media giants Facebook and YouTube scrubbing the name of the alleged whistleblower responsible for impeachment.



CNN can’t even tell people whether naming the whistleblower is illegal. But tech companies are now the judge and jury for the common user. Facebook and YouTube announced that they would delete content that named the whistleblower whose story inspired the Democrats to launch an impeachment inquiry on President Donald Trump. A Facebook spokesperson told CNN on Nov. 8 that “[a]ny mention of the potential whistleblower’s name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content ‘outing of witness, informant, or activist.’”

 



CBS’s Madam Secretary has been quite bold in its final season. First it starts out with a Hillary Clinton-like female president. Then, it follows up by praising reporters as fighting “the good fight.” Now, it goes one step further in promoting censorship out of fear of causing white nationalism.



On Sunday CNN’s Reliable Sources, which bills itself as a program about “the media world”, failed to spend even a second of airtime on the week’s biggest media story: the revelation that in 2016, ABC allegedly suppressed a story about convicted serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.



Univision’s “Agenda Latina” is evergreen, and ever expanding beyond immigration. The network now appears to be joining efforts to impose censorship on social media. Check out the full post to see as correspondent Lourdes Del Río advocated for “some sort of control” of social media.



Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time and Obama State Department undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs, used free speech and the press... to attack free speech and the press in a truly pathetic op-ed published in the Washington Post Tuesday.



Dennis Prager and Adam Carolla have created a new documentary on the subject of free speech on campus called “No Safe Spaces.” Prager announces near the outset that a Pew Research Center survey found 49 percent of college students do not support free speech if it’s designated as “hate speech.” He asked, “Do you know how moronic that is? The issue of free speech doesn’t apply to love speech. Nobody ever threatened love speech.”



Following in the footsteps of cowardly NBA hypocrites who blast Trump/conservatives but never China with its large number of human rights abuses, Disney CEO Bob Iger has decided to keep his mouth shut about the communist state because not doing so would pose a threat to his Mickey Mouse cash.



Kudos to the Huffington Post for trying to find some common ground between the LGBTQ community and Christians. And by finding common ground, we mean adopting a scorched earth/take-no-prisoners tactic in its war against those with different points of view.