Media supports censorship

The murder of Elsie Dot Stancombe, 7, Alice Dasilva Aguiar, 9, and Bebe King, 6, and the slashing of eight other children in England has sparked fiery protests. Police arrested Axel Rudakubana, who turned 18 days after the attack.

People have assumed he is a refugee and a Muslim. But he is a Christian. He was born in the UK of Rwandan parents. The British government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer has used the confusion as an excuse to crack down on social media.

The world media has not stood up to the British government’s demand for censorship.

AP spun this Battle of Britain as “UK government calls on Elon Musk to act responsibly amid provocative posts as unrest grips the country.”

So, what are the facts?

The Crown Prosecution Service used Twitter to warn users:

Think before you post! 📲✋ Content that incites violence or hatred isn't just harmful — it can be illegal.

The CPS takes online violence seriously and will prosecute when the legal test is met. Remind those close to you to share responsibly or face the consequences.

I have asked Twitter if this violates its rules against harassment and intimidation. No answer as yet.

X is unlikely to reply because it already is in enough trouble with fascists governments in Australia, Brazil, Venezuela and now, England. Fascism is when the government and corporations conspire to control the people. Yes, the American government now falls into that definition — so look for the online dictionaries to change their definitions — an act that also is fascist.

And the fascists running England warned me and my 328 million fellow Americans that we are not safe. The New York Post reported:

London’s Metropolitan Police chief warned that officials will not only be cracking down on British citizens for commentary on the riots in the UK, but on American citizens as well.

“We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,” Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told Sky News.

Riots have broken out across the United Kingdom in recent days over false rumors spread online that an asylum seeker was responsible for a mass stabbing at a Taylor Swift-themed dance event that left three girls dead and others wounded.

Under Biden, our FBI will help them. Remember January 6.

The press in America is silent as lambs as the British threaten to jail Americans. We do not fear the Brits. The American people are speaking up on Twitter. Americans are not to be intimidated. 1776 is in our DNA.

The story said, “Footage of the violent clashes involving anti-immigration protesters and the groups of counter-protesters, some of whom have been seen waving Palestinian flags, has gone viral on social media, and the government is warning that sharing such content may have serious consequences.”

When Trump was president in that brief restoration of our republic, the press said Twitter was a public square. On behalf of journalists, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia sued to force the president not to block critics, a feature any other user enjoys. This was his private account.

The institute said, “The lawsuit maintains that the @realDonaldTrump account is a public forum under the First Amendment, from which the government may not exclude people based simply on their views. It also claims that the White House is violating the seven individual plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to petition their government, and that by purging critics from the @realDonaldTrump account, the White House is depriving those who remain in the public forum the opportunity to hear critical voices.”

When Twitter suspended Trump from this public forum, Jameel Jaffer, the director of the Knight Institute, sang a different tune.

He tweeted, “It's coherent — and in my view absolutely appropriate — to believe both that (i) the social media companies were right to suspend Trump's accounts last week; and (ii) the companies' immense power over public discourse is a problem for democracy.”

In other words, censor those who journalists choose to ban but leave us alone.

In 2023, Newsweek praised “The Story of the Jewish Lawyer Who Defended the Free Speech Rights of Nazis” in 1977. The message in the 1970s is if they censor Nazis, eventually they will censor you.

Now the press favors censoring ordinary people who express ideas that a president or a prime minister have labeled as extremist. The message today is throw conservatives to the lions in the hope that the lions will be satisfied and not go after you.

Free speech allows us to take on the lions and the lyin’. Tampon Tim’s former battalion commander took to Facebook to express his feelings toward him. I copped this screen grab from Twitter.

I was surprised Facebook did not pull it down. I am not surprised that it was reposted on Twitter because Twitter is Ground Zero in the Battle for Free Speech.

Libs of TikTok tweeted, “Tim Walz apparently thinks Bagram Air Base is in Iraq.”

If you are going to pretend you were in combat, at least do some basic background on the battleground. Twitter is allowing readers to do the job the Muppets in the News Media no longer do.

Musk, for all intents and purposes the owner of Twitter faces censorship abroad and little support at home. Advertisers currying favor with governments organized a boycott of Twitter. The press cheered.

The Guardian said, “Elon Musk is being ridiculous. Companies are free to choose where to advertise.”

This is true but antitrust laws do apply to a cabal of advertisers. In the face of the lawsuit, the cabal broke up. The press pretended this was not a group of businessmen conspiring against a company. The Wall Street Journal spun it as, “Elon Musk’s X Sued a Nonprofit Advertising Initiative. It Shut Down Days Later.”

It was just a charity, a nonprofit.

But the Journal, through its columnist Tim Higgins, also seemed to praise Musk:

The chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX has fashioned himself as something of a modern day Larry Flynt: a rich guy willing to spend his own fortune as a defender of free speech even if it is offensive to many.

The late Flynt was a millionaire peddling porn. Musk is a billionaire peddling contentious social issues. They share a flair for attracting attention and taking on high-profile fights.

The world’s richest man is hankering for battle against anyone trying tell him what can’t be said — including, this past week, the U.K.’s new prime minister, Keir Starmer, and an organization for major global advertisers whose spending he wants on X.

The column also said:

Earlier this year, Musk tangled with Brazil’s Supreme Court after it ordered the removal of several X accounts it deemed to be propagating hate speech and false information — claims Musk suggested were politically motivated and in violation of the nation’s laws.

Musk successfully fought an effort by Australian authorities to force X to remove a video of the stabbing of a religious leader that X argued would have set a dangerous precedent that effectively allowed one country to police the entire internet.

And this past week, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro banned X in the country for 10 days as Musk and others have used the platform to dispute his re-election victory.

Musk should not have to stand alone. But lefty support of free speech ended (as did its support for other rights) when the left seized power.

By abandoning free speech even for Nazis, my whole former occupation can collapse and I will laugh as their jobs vanish in the haze. Supporting censorship invalidates their claims to free speech. They are the bullies who finally are caught and receiving the whupping they deserve.