07/27/2023 / By News Editors
Emma-Jo Morris, editor at Breitbart and former editor at the New York Post, testified before the House Weaponization Committee about the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, including the coordinated nature of the social media blackout as well as the potential collusion with federal agencies working with media outlets like Politico to derail the story as “Russian disinformation” right before the 2020 election.
(Article by Tyler Durden republished from ZeroHedge.com)
It should not be easy to forget the level of mass censorship on display in 2020-2022, with widespread violations of free speech rights by government’s using Big Tech as a corporate hitman. From the blatant spin in favor of BLM’s “fiery but peaceful” riots, to the attempted deplatforming of websites like Zero Hedge in retaliation for coverage of covid’s potential Wuhan Lab origins (In light of congressional investigations, we now know it was Anthony Fauci that organized the suppression of the lab leak theory), to the complete erasure of the Hunter Biden laptop from public view – Social media has been a tool for controlling public perception rather than a means of free communication.
However, the populace has been bombarded with so many crises and scandals in the past few years they may need reminding of the numerous trespasses that took place not long ago.
It is of course now absolutely and undeniably confirmed that the Hunter Biden Laptop is real. The data on the laptop is the centerpiece of an investigation and impending impeachment against Joe Biden, specifically in regards to the exploitation of his office as a means to secure foreign business deals for his family members.
The Twitter Files, released by Elon Musk after his takeover of the platform, detail numerous instances in which federal agencies and politicians asked for censorship measures against individuals and groups in violation of the 1st Amendment, including the censorship of the laptop story. The Biden campaign routinely requested tweets be deleted in 2020, and while some requests also came from Republicans including Donald Trump, the majority of accounts actually censored by Twitter were in fact conservative or anti-establishment.
The relationship between the FBI and the old regime at Twitter was disturbingly direct. FBI Supervisory Special Agent Elvis Chan testified in a lawsuit against the Biden administration brought by Republican attorneys that he organized weekly meetings with Twitter and Facebook in San Francisco for as many as seven Washington-based FBI agents in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.
The FBI is also noted as paying out at least $3.4 million to Twitter for their “help” in “processing legal requests” regarding censored accounts. Musk revealed that a crucial player in Twitter’s censorship of The Post and the Biden Laptop story was former FBI general counsel James Baker, a central player in the Russia collusion hoax, who had become Twitter’s Deputy General Counsel.
Thus far, no individual or agency has yet been punished for constitutional violations related to social media censorship of the American people, and establishment journalists have spent the better part of the last six months attempting to dismiss the Twitter Files and any government partnerships with Big Tech as nothing more than “conspiracy theory.”
Read more at: ZeroHedge.com
Tagged Under:
Biden crime family, big government, Big Tech, Censorship, conspiracy, corruption, cyber war, free press, freedom, Glitch, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Journalism, latop, Liberty, mainstream media, New York Post, news cartels, Social media, speech police, Suppressed, tech giants, technocrats, thought police, truth, White House
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
COPYRIGHT © 2017 FIRSTAMENDMENT.NEWS
All content posted on this site is protected under Free Speech. FirstAmendment.news is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. FirstAmendment.news assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and service marks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.