#republicans censoring citizens

[shoujoboy-restart]

A conservative school board member in Virginia singled out a queer student over the weekend by calling an emergency meeting to determine whether or not their piece of artwork should be allowed in the school's spring show. Abby Driscoll’s piece about religious trauma, “But Not Enough to Save You,” was made for the Fort Defiance High School’s spring show, which explicitly had the theme of “trauma.” It depicts praying hands gripping a rosary surrounded by rainbow pages of the Bible, alongside the powerful statement: “GOD LOVES YOU BUT NOT ENOUGH TO SAVE YOU.” “This piece is representative of the idea that growing up queer meant you couldn’t be saved by God,” its description reads. “I grew up in a religious background and that influenced this project. The idea of the glowing red cross is to represent evil in the eyes of God and the bleeding rainbow represents devotion vs identity.”

While all the details of the closed-door meeting have not been revealed, Driscoll's principal reportedly stood up for her, and Simmons' push ultimately failed. The conservative still took to Facebook afterwards to share that the board "agreed to work on a policy that will address issues like this going forward." "For now, the art work in question will be removed by the time students arrive back at school on Monday as the art show ends on Sunday," he wrote. Simmons was ruthlessly mocked by his constituents under both of his posts, with several people slamming his infringements on Driscoll's right to free speech and expression.

"Imagine believing you have the right to go through life without seeing anything that might offend you. Imagine trampling over the rights of others just to make sure there’s no possibility you might be offended," one person wrote.

[fullhalalalchemist]

🚨🚨CONGRESS SECRETLY TRYING TO SNEAK IN EARN IT ACT COPYCAT INTO MUST PASS SPENDING BILL (PLEASE READ EXTREMELY IMPORTANT)

July 20, 2023 Congress is right now determining what is included in a must pass spending bill the NDAA. Often congress will sneakily add as amendments their bills that they can't pass in a normal setting.

If you remember, I made a previous post about EARN IT being reintroduced here.

The EARN IT Act and it's copycats are bipartisan bills that will greatly censor if not completely eliminate encryption and anything sexual and LGBTQ+ from the internet, globally. Anything the far-right doesn't like will be completely gone. The best way to stop them is to use https://www.badinternetbills.com/ to call your senators.

Following it's initial introduction earlier this year was massive opposition from human rights, LGBT, tech, political groups, and grassroots groups. Bc of this, the senators decided to remake the bill but give it a new name, so they can still pass Earn It without actually passing Earn It. Those bills are the Stop CSAM Act (yes really, they actually named it that), and the Cooper-Davis act.

The entire point of these bills is to mass surveil and censor everyone and I don't know why more people or senators speak out against it. There is a direct timeline from when the Attorney General Barr (under Trump) said he wanted to do this to it's initial introduction in 2019, and how the senators explicitly knew they couldn't actually say that so they lied and said it was about "stopping CSAM" or "stopping drugs" for Cooper-Davis Act.

These bills essentially do the following:

they gut encryption, the one thing actually protects you from having your data seen by anyone. Do you want republicans to know you're trans? that someone had an abortion? that they spoke out against the govt? to see your private photos you have uploaded to the cloud? to see what porn you watch? if youre a journalist, or an abuse survivor, any hacker or abuser can see your stuff and track you.

they gut parts of Section 230, the one thing that allows anyone to post online and birthed social media. Previous gutting into 230 gave us the tumblr nsfw ban and killed that site.

they create an unelected commission with some already established govt body (DOJ, FTC, etc) that will include law enforcement and people from NCOSE or other Christian conservative groups who will decide what is and isn't lawful to say. no citizen can vote who's on this commission, and the president gets to pick. it's like the supreme court, but for the internet.

lead to mass censorship and surveillance because of the above

We have until the end of the month to stop this, but this can be added literally any moment until then. It's literally code red. If this is added it goes into effect immediately. The BEST way to stop this is to drive calls and emails to the senate. https://www.badinternetbills.com/ connects you directly to your members of congress & gives you a call script.

It is ESSENTIAL to call the Senate leaders who can stop this. Here's a more precise call script you can use: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huD5Ldd1lPTECYTEb9Gg2ZzrqW6Y9tryHT-MdjOl8kY/edit

All these people expressed concern over Earn It, so we need to press them hard to not allow it's copycats Cooper-Davis or Stop CSAM into the NDAA. This is URGENT and needs all hands on deck. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) (202) 224-6542 Maria Cantwell (D-WA) (202) 224-3441 Jon Ossof (D-GA) (202)-224-3521 Alex Padilla (D-CA) (202) 224-3553 Cory Booker (D-NJ) (202) 224-3224 Mike Lee (R-UT) (202) 224-5444

Please please please spread this message and blow up their phones.

TLDR; The Senate is trying to quietly push the Earn It Act's copycat bills into the must pass NDAA, which will lead to mass censorship and surveillance online by gutting Section 230 which is the entire reason you can even be on tumblr and why the internet exists, killing encryption which put everyone's lives in danger, and appointing far-right people to a supreme court-esque commission that the president has direct control over. They could be added in ANY DAY and we need to push hard to stop it before it gets to that point. CALL YOUR SENATORS **NOW** BY USING https://www.badinternetbills.com/ AND CALL THE SENATE LEADERSHIP AND SPREAD THE WORD!!!!

[learnwithmearticles]

A Violation of Two Amendments

If you’ve seen a lot of posts online about KOSA, it’s because it has the potential to drastically change the internet.

The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is a proposed bill receiving U.S. Democratic and Republican support.

It pulls on strong concerns about the safety of children, especially the fabricated concerns of LGBT+ topics propagandized by conservatives. It would permit the government to censor the internet at will, restricting what information is available online for everyone, even people in other countries.

The bill would permit attorneys general to prevent basic information about healthcare, mental health, world news, and more from being accessible online, keeping adults as well as children from finding important information and resources.

There are valid concerns about the internet and its ability to harm people, especially children. I have written a thesis specifically about the relationships between mental health and social media. In no way would I ever advocate for increased censorship in the way that this bill does.

It specifically violates the First Amendment of the Constitution, inserting governmental control over people’s speech, the sharing of news, and the sharing of opinions. This would be placing the responsibility of parenting on the government, and allowing them to determine exactly what children -and adults- are allowed to learn.

Furthermore, it is disguised as a bill to ‘protect children’, and that phrase itself has unfortunately become a dog whistle for conservatives referring to LGBT+ topics existing in the world. This bill is extremely dangerous to young LGBT+ individuals.

It is also dangerous to people of different races, nationalities, economic backgrounds, and gun owners. This is because it would virtually mandate age verification. This poses danger for children, people facing domestic abuse, and houseless people, as well as violating the Fourteenth Amendment, which asserts that the state cannot exert undue control over its citizens’ private lives.

Many organizations and websites have initiated petitions and calls to action to express disapproval of this bill, outlining its rights violations, and helping individuals find out how to contact their senators. Some of those resources are linked below.

Additional Resources

1.https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/02/dont-fall-latest-changes-dangerous-kids-online-safety-act

2. https://www.stopkosa.com/

3.https://www.change.org/p/save-our-free-and-open-internet-stop-the-kids-online-safety-act4. https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/censorship-wont-make-kids-safe?nowrapper=true

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jessica Valenti at Abortion, Every Day:

Anti-Abortion Strategy

Well, they’re back at it! Texas Rep. Steve Toth introduced a bill this week that would ban pro-choice websites. Under the “Women and Child Safety Act,” internet service providers would be forced to block any site that contains information about how to obtain abortions or abortion medication. That means the websites of pro-choice organizations and abortion funds would be banned—even Abortion, Every Day would be illegal under the bill.

The bill even includes a list of specific websites that would be banned in the state, including: Aid Access, Hey Jane, Plan C Pills, Just the Pill, and Carafem. If passed, the law would allow citizens to bring civil suits against internet service providers that don’t block these websites. (Which is sort of Texas’ thing—they love to incentivize communities turning on each other over abortion.) But it doesn’t end there: Toth’s legislation would charge anyone who raises money for abortion care with a felony—with a particular eye towards targeting abortion funds. In fact, the legislation prompts the state Attorney General to investigate and charge abortion funds using the RICO Act, which is meant to go after organized crime. (If you’ve read my book, you know all about this; Republicans are eager to go after ‘the helpers.’)

If all of this sounds familiar, it’s because Toth introduced a near-identical bill last year. And he’s not alone. Iowa Republicans also tried to pass legislation to ban pro-choice websites last year; their legislation would have also allowed citizens to sue internet service providers and prosecute abortion funds under the RICO Act. The bills are part of a broader attack on free speech about abortion. Idaho and Tennessee, for example, both passed laws recently that make it illegal to help teens access abortion. Under these policies, even texting a teen the url to an out-of-state clinic would be considered criminal ‘abortion trafficking.’ (Both laws are currently blocked on First Amendment grounds.) The Republicans trying to pass this kind of legislation all say the same thing: that helping someone get an abortion isn’t protected speech. 

Red state censorship in action: Texas HB991 would censor pro-choice websites within the Lone Star State.

[hikkikoaubrey]

Please read, don't scroll pass this.

Hello, in this post I mainly wanted to talk about KOSA, as well as the "banning TikTok" bill that has also been a big problem lately. Now I know this is mainly an American issue but in the long run if these bills get passed it could lead to other places, and even then, it will ultimately effect America for the worse.

These bills aim to censor people and suppressing their freedom of speech. Literally going against first amendment of the US constitution (which is about freedom of speech)

Here are some links that will probably explain things better than I ever could, please look into them, and of course do your own research on this. (also KOSA and the TikTok bill are not the same thing) If nothing is done this could end up changing the internet for the worse.

(20) ˋˏ🍉 jessie/jes. ⁴ ⁵⁵ 🏎️ˎˊ on X: "A 🧵of resources for you to learn and start taking action against KOSA (a trojan horse for internet censorship): https://t.co/UfSIzz5nrD" / X (twitter.com)

https://x.com/T_H_E_B_I_T_E/status/1767935486926979327?s=20

https://x.com/SoftSuperstar/status/1768404026293420072?s=20

(20) Isa Baguette 🥖🍉 on X: "America is LITERALLY becoming a facist state before our eyes and some people STILL seem to think democrats, or republicans, will fix it. There NEEDS to be a MAJOR change to the way our government works and functions, because this is NOT it." / X (twitter.com)

https://x.com/_bilaire/status/1768067681687654471?s=20

(20) MaceAhWindu 🇵🇸 on X: "The fact that they won’t try and pass an actual American data privacy bill that protects user data and instead tries to ban the apps that aren’t based in America is proof that this banning TikTok thing has never actually been about protecting citizens." / X (twitter.com)

(20) courtney 🇵🇸 on X: "we’re watching blatant censorship bc these old farts are scared & y’all are not concerned enough for my liking 😭" / X (twitter.com)

(20) Mothball on X: "Btw the TikTok ban bill passed this morning, but only in the house, We will have a chance to fight against it in the Senate. I will make a thread on it in the near future. The TikTok Ban is a different bill from KOSA." / X (twitter.com)

Might add more to this post tommarow, and will make a post about project 2025 sometime soon

[botgal]

oh im less anxious now lol glad it was cancelled for today since its going to be extended did they say how many days or no? Also we should still be putting pressure calling and emailing even if its cancelled for now its definitely not a coincidence they tried to sneak this bill so many people weren't even aware of it. We can spread more about this so we are prepared more next time otherwise their going to keep sneaking in bills or trying to distract us thinking we won't notice. And the whole goal is to tire us out and give up which we shouldn't! No more sulking/giving up keep pressuring them we can't let them win or get away with this its a violation of our fucking rights the government has never cared about kids or it's citizens. They want to control and censor us so keep calling/emailing.

At this point in time I haven't seen any talk of rescheduling the markup. It appears the reason is mainly about another bill that was in the markup, the American Privacy Rights Act, due to some controversy within the Republican party. Especially since this markup was cancelled moments before it was set to begin. So will have to keep our ears to the ground on this one if they try to get around this by scheduling another markup without that bill in the mix.

Definitely a good idea to keep on top of the flow of things with this bill. Keep calling your reps, especially those who are members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (can be found below).

That's exactly right. What they want more than anything is for us to give up hope and stop trying completely, so that no one can stop them when they want to make more pushes to get these things through again. Especially since we're getting towards the end of the year, and there'll be a couple of month-long breaks in legislative floors coming up in August and October.

Slow and steady wins the race. Keep pushing and telling them why these things are a bad idea, and keep doing so until they understand we won't back down about it.

[justforbooks]

That Librarian by Amanda Jones

A small-town US librarian’s lively account of her battle with a group of far-right censors reveals the toll it took on her health

Amanda Jones’s story is awful – and important. A school librarian for 23 years in her home town of Watson, southern Louisiana, she has watched with concern in recent years as a movement of book-banning swept across the US. According to the American Library Association, “book challenges” in public libraries almost doubled from 729 in 2021 to 1,269 in 2022.

In July 2022, when Jones heard about a public meeting that would discuss “book content” in local libraries, she went along. A board member said she was “concerned” about some “inappropriate” material in the local library’s children and young adult sections. In response, Jones gave a measured speech, explaining her belief that “while book challenges are often done with the best intentions, and in the name of age appropriateness, they often target marginalised communities” and “books on sexual health and reproduction”. She went on to detail the “First Amendment right to borrow, read, view, and listen to library resources”.

“I said nothing earth-shattering,” Jones writes in her memoir. But within days her life had been upended because of two posts on social media. The first was by the Facebook page of Citizens for a New Louisiana, a far-right group whom Jones knew had worked to defund a library in nearby Lafayette and whose executive director was a man named Michael Lunsford. It accused Jones of “fighting so hard to keep sexually erotic and pornographic materials in the kids’ section”. The second Facebook post was made by local man Ryan Thames, who wrote that Jones advocated “teaching anal sex to 11-year-olds”.

The posts were shared widely by local people, including many Jones knew. “One parent in particular whose child I had helped with getting services for a learning disability was especially vicious,” she writes, devastatingly. Later, she received a death threat. Over the course of the next year, Jones, who is in her mid-40s, lost a lot of weight, experienced hair loss and took medical leave from work. In the spring of 2023 she sued Lunsford and Thames for defamation.

That Librarian is Jones’s account of the 2022 public meeting that started her ordeal, the ultimately unsuccessful court case and all that followed. She has a lively, convivial style: “I worried that my friends and family would be targeted next. Spoiler alert: they were.” Sometimes this breeziness veers into pettiness, as when she describes an opponent who has “the spelling and grammar of a child of 10”, or refers to Valarie Hodges, a member of the Louisiana state senate who posted online against Jones, as “my gal pal Val”.

The more wistful sections are warming. Jones describes how she was in high school when Watson had its first traffic light installed – that’s how small a town it is. She credits her teenage reading of Judy Blume, one of the most banned authors ever, with “making me more empathetic”. Jones believes uncompromisingly in the power of books to open minds. And through working as a school librarian, has seen the impact of exclusion politics: “I have lost more former students to suicide than I care to think about, many of whom, I suspect, died as a direct result of being made to feel excluded in our society.” Together, these experiences have informed her anti-censorship mentality.

But she knows party politics comes into it too. Her local area has become “extremely alt-right and conspiratorial” in recent years, and she has noticed that “all book banners seem to be Republican”. She is refreshingly honest about her relative complicity. “It wasn’t until I was into my 40s that I realised some aspects of our country weren’t that great,” she writes, before admitting that she voted for Donald Trump in 2016. She regrets it now, but these admittances are important. Listening to voices from across the political divide, and understanding the ways in which we are both similar and different to those who vote similarly and differently to us is crucial in understanding why the world is the way it is – even more so after Trump’s re-election.

Several times, Jones refers to how she has tracked her defamers to see they have also donated to election campaigns of particular pro-ban politicians. But she never fully examines the intricacies of this likely organised overlap, or takes a step back to consider how this current wave of book banning compares with historical cases. As such, “my fight against book banning in America” would be a more suitable subtitle, not “the fight”. This is a brave, fascinating book, but it’s the personal story of Jones’s ordeal – about which she is evidently still very bitter – rather than an account of the movement as a whole.

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at Just for Books…?

[tomorrowusa]

The "secret shelf" of banned books at a Texas high school. Texas is like a communist country where citizens need to find covert ways to read books which the state doesn't want them to see.

In the far, far suburbs of Houston, Texas, three teenagers are talking at a coffee shop about a clandestine bookshelf in their public school classroom. It's filled with books that have been challenged or banned. "Some of the books that I've read are books like Hood Feminism, The Poet X, Gabi, A Girl in Pieces," says one of the girls. She's a 17-year-old senior with round glasses and long braids. The books, she says, sparked her feminist consciousness. "I just see, especially in my community, a lot of women being talked down upon and those books [were] really nice to read." These students live in a state that has banned more books than nearly any other, according to PEN America. The Texas State Board of Education passed a policy in late 2023 prohibiting what it calls "sexually explicit, pervasively vulgar or educationally unsuitable books in public schools." Over the past two years, Texas teachers have lost jobs or been pressured to resign after making challenged books available to students. The teacher who created this bookshelf could become a target for far right-wing groups. That's why NPR is not naming her, nor her students.

Yeah, gotta watch out for Texas brownshirts in cowboy hats who yell and threaten people at school board meetings.

"We don't want to jeopardize our teacher in any way, or the bookshelf," another teenager explains. Until recently, he says, he was not naturally inclined toward reading. But the secret bookshelf opened a world of characters and situations he immediately related to. "Just to see Latinos, like LGBTQ," he says. "That's not something you really see in our community, or it's not very well represented at all." The secret bookshelf began in late 2021, when then-state Rep. Matt Krause sent public schools a list of 850 books he wanted banned from schools. They might, he said, "make students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex." That made this teacher furious. "The books that make you uncomfortable are the books that make you think," she told NPR. "Isn't that what school is supposed to do? It's supposed to make you think?" She swung into action, calling friends to support a bookshelf that would include all of the books Krause wanted banned. Then she enlisted a student to put it together. "I went through the list and found the ones that I thought were cool," he recalled to NPR over a London Fog latte. "And then she gave me her [credit] card and I bought them. It was a lot of gay books, I remember that."

That same student came out as trans to his family while in high school. "I wouldn't call them supportive, so I had to do a lot of sneaking around," he said quietly. Now 19, he's graduated and works as a host in a restaurant while deciding on his next move. "Having these books, having these stories out there meant a lot to me, because I felt seen," he said. Especially meaningful, he added, during a fraught time when Texas lawmakers banned transition-related care for teenagers. "Because of the way the laws are going for trans people especially," he said, "it could be assumed that [my teacher is] grooming kids. And that would be terrible because that's not what she's doing at all."

Kudos to the teacher and students who are maintaining this mini-library!

Because most of the HS seniors will be turning 18 this year, I hope the secret shelf adds information on voter registration. A minimum of 99% of the book banners are Republicans. And the only way to get rid of Republicans is to vote Democratic. Contrast Republican Texas with Democratic Illinois which has banned book banning.

Law prohibiting book bans in Illinois now in effect

Illinois is known as the Land of Lincoln. Abe Lincoln had less than two years of formal education but he became a voracious reader. He would be shocked and disappointed that his old party has degenerated into a mob of book banners and book burners.

[saintmeghanmarkle]

Lady C Tea YouTube 9/26/23 (a few nuggets paraphrased by me) by u/daisybeach23

Lady C Tea YouTube 9/26/23 (a few nuggets paraphrased by me) Greetings from Castle Goring!Lady C, Did you see the charity event that Harry and Meghan attended with Kevin Costner? They looked so desperate for attention. Meghan grabbed the microphone (meant for someone else) and she grabbed an award meant for Kevin Costner. The cameras filmed their every move and the behavior was just so bizarre. Well, I have been on the bongo drums and I have a little bit of news from LA. First of all, WME has a connection to all the celebrities there. My understanding is that Kevin Costner allowed Harry and Meghan to be special guests at the request of WME. I also understand that Kevin Costner could barely tolerate them when they were all waiting to go on. If you watch the video, he made sure to have no contact with Meghan. Kevin Costner is very committed to the charity for local first responders. He is also a team player. He understands the necessity of “scratching each other’s back.” My understanding is that Meghan makes him cringe but he does have an affinity for Princess Diana because there were talks of her starring in The Bodyguard (even though she wasn’t seriously going to star in that movie). The person who spoke to me says Kevin Costner is very conscious of money. He was taken for a ride by his first wife. His second wife tried to take him for a ride and he is very uncomfortable in Meghan’s presence. In fairness to Meghan, maybe Meghan thought she was supposed to take the microphone? But I was told she was not supposed to do anything except stand beside Harry. My source says Kevin Costner dislikes Meghan but he is a team player. Notice he avoided her. Their appearance was 100% arranged by Ari Emmanuel at WME. Some people who saw her at the event said she looked like she was “flying high” and looked dreadful. She looked emaciated and her face has huge lines, the Ozempic look. That Olive Oil bun was the only option for her (expensive) Turkish hair because of the collar on her cloak. And they were so perplexed why she was half dressed in Germany where it was cooler and bundled up in a cloak in California where it was warmer. Harry and Meghan were desperate for some attention after Prince William’s successful visit to America. Apparently, Prince William is popular with both the Republicans and Democrats – oh dear….. oh dear.Lady C, I read that a few years ago, when Meghan was in New York and visited a school, she made all the teachers sign agreements they would not say anything bad about them now and in the future. Also, I read that she banned all British newspapers from attending even though this was a publicly owned building . Why do people let them do these things? Well, two years ago they were more popular than they are today. There is that. They have been trading on their status as detached members of the Royal Family. They banned the British Press because they knew the American Press would report on the censored version they present and the British Press would catch on better to what Meghan and Harry are doing. We are living in frightening times and Meghan harry want to sensor what people say and wrote about them. We should all be very concerned because Meghan and Harry’s censorship agenda is closer to being realized that we all realize. Harry is using litigation and his celebrity to sue the media. Most people who are born into wealth and privilege loathe the press.Lady C spent 30 minutes saying British Parliament is using the law to deprive its citizens of Free Speech and liberties.Toodles Sinners! post link: https://ift.tt/tXwboQZ author: daisybeach23 submitted: September 27, 2023 at 02:37AM via SaintMeghanMarkle on Reddit

[lizzydizzyyo]

CONGRESS SECRETLY TRYING TO SNEAK IN EARN IT ACT COPYCAT INTO MUST PASS SPENDING BILL (PLEASE READ EXTREMELY IMPORTANT)

Congress is right now determining what is included in a must pass spending bill the NDAA. Often congress will sneakily add as amendments their bills that they can't pass in a normal setting.

The EARN IT Act and it's copycats are bipartisan bills that will greatly censor if not completely eliminate encryption and anything sexual and LGBTQ+ from the internet, globally.

Following it's introduction earlier this year was massive, massive opposition from both the left and right from human rights groups, LGBT groups, tech groups, political groups, and grassroots groups. Well, because of this the senators decided to remake the bill but give it a new name, so they can still pass Earn It without actually passing Earn It.

Those bills are found here: 

https://www.badinternetbills.com/

They are the Stop CSAM Act (yes really, they actually named it that), and the Cooper-Davis act, which does the same things the others do except targeting 'drug trafficking'.

These bills essentially do the following:

they gut encryption, the one thing actually protects you from having your data seen by anyone. Do you want republicans to know you're trans? that someone had an abortion? that they spoke out against the govt? to see your private photos you have uploaded to the cloud? to see what porn you watch? if youre a journalist, or an abuse survivor, any hacker or abuser can see your stuff and track you.

they gut parts of Section 230, the one thing that allows anyone to post online and birthed social media. Previous gutting into 230 gave us the tumblr nsfw ban and killed that site.

they create an unelected commission with some already established govt body (DOJ, FTC, etc) that will include law enforcement and people from NCOSE or other Christian conservative groups who will decide what is and isn't lawful to say. no citizen can vote who's on this commission, and the president gets to pick. it's like the supreme court, but for the internet.

lead to mass censorship and surveillance because of the above.

We have until the end of the month to stop this, but this can be added literally any moment until then. It's literally code red. If this is added it goes into effect immediately. The BEST way to stop this is to drive calls and emails to the senate. 

https://www.badinternetbills.com/ connects you directly to your members of congress & gives you a call script.

It is ESSENTIAL to call the Senate leaders who can stop this. Here's a more precise call script you can use: 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huD5Ldd1lPTECYTEb9Gg2ZzrqW6Y9tryHT-MdjOl8kY/edit

All these people expressed concern over Earn It, so we need to press them hard to not allow it's copycats Cooper-Davis or Stop CSAM into the NDAA. This is URGENT and needs all hands on deck.

Chuck Schumer (D-NY) (202) 224-6542

Maria Cantwell (D-WA) (202) 224-3441

Jon Ossof (D-GA) (202)-224-3521

Alex Padilla (D-CA) (202) 224-3553

Cory Booker (D-NJ) (202) 224-3224

Mike Lee (R-UT) (202) 224-5444

Please please please spread this message and blow up their phones.

https://www.badinternetbills.com/ 

TLDR; The Senate is trying to quietly push the Earn It Act's copycat bills into the must pass NDAA, which will lead to mass censorship and surveillance online by gutting Section 230 which is the entire reason you can even be on Reddit and why the internet exists, killing encryption which put everyone's lives in danger, and appointing far-right people to a supreme court-esque commission that the president has direct control over. They could be added ANY DAY and we need to push hard to stop it before it gets to that point.

CALL YOUR SENATORS **NOW** BY USING 

AND CALL THE SENATE LEADERSHIP AND SPREAD THE WORD!!!!

Source

[mariacallous]

When Robin Marty was writing her 2021 book The New Handbook for a Post-Roe America: The Complete Guide to Abortion Legality, Access, and Practical Support, people often asked her why she didn’t just make it an online resource. 

“I said, ‘Well, we can't guarantee that online is always going to be accessible for people,’” says Marty, who is director of operations at the West Alabama Women's Center in Tuscaloosa. Her concern that women might one day be restricted from reading about abortion online proved prescient.

State lawmakers in Texas are considering a bill introduced last month that would make it illegal to provide information on how to access abortion. The bill would also require internet service providers to block websites offering content like that in Marty’s book, allow prosecution of abortion pill “distribution networks,” and permit anyone to sue a person who shared anything about how to access a medical abortion. The proposal borrows from a Texas law passed in 2021 that offers a cash bounty to citizens who sue a person who helped facilitate access to abortion care.

The Texas proposal to restrict information about abortion follows a recent flurry of attempts to limit reproductive rights in the US, with a particular focus on medical abortions—that is, abortions induced by medication. Experts worry that if passed, the bill could incentivize platforms and internet service providers (ISPs) to censor abortion-related content more broadly for fear of costly court cases. 

“It’s scaring the platforms and the ISPs and the speakers into thinking that they can be liable for the speech,” says Jennifer Pinsof, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “So it’s having a chilling effect and advancing the goal of keeping this information from being accessible to people online.”

Access to good information about abortion could become even more important as new restrictions are placed on the procedure. Earlier this month, a Texas judge ruled to suspend the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, a pill that in combination with misoprostol is part of the standard process for a medical abortion. This week, a federal appeals court ruled that though mifepristone could still be used for abortions, it can no longer be prescribed by mail.

The proposal to block Texans from accessing information about abortion, introduced by three male Republican representatives, is the most far-reaching attempt to date to limit how easily people learn about abortion access in the US. But it is not without precedent. Arizona has had a ban on advertising abortion services on its books since 1873. Other states, including Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, and California, have restrictions on advertising the procedure.

Free speech is generally protected in the US under the First Amendment to the Constitution, while technology platforms have successfully argued that Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act means they can’t be held liable for content posted by users. 

However, the bill being debated in Texas could essentially sidestep at least some of these protections by enlisting citizens to police information about abortions. Instead of the government cracking down on content, citizens would file civil court cases, with potential targets including social platforms and ISPs hosting websites or social posts offering information about abortion.

Pinsof says companies facing such legal threats would have little incentive to defend the free speech of their users if it helped them avoid litigation. “We’ve seen over and over in different contexts that platforms are vulnerable to censorship pressure because they're afraid of being sued,” says Pinsof. “So it's easier to take stuff down than it is to potentially open yourself up to liability.” 

Another part of the law would require ISPs to “make every reasonable and technologically feasible effort to block internet access to information or material intended to assist or facilitate efforts to obtain an elective abortion or an abortion-inducing drug.” It also shields them from legal liability resulting from such takedowns, which Pinsof thinks could further encourage companies to remove content related to abortion.

Platforms are currently watching a case in the Supreme Court which argues that tech companies can in fact be held liable for content promoted on their platforms. Any weakening of that protection could expose companies to additional legal hazards in Texas under the proposed bill if they allowed pro-choice content to be shared on their services. Pinsof says the law can be read as making the provision of information about abortion “illegal both for speakers themselves, and also for platforms.”

WIRED reached out to Twitter, Reddit, Meta, and TikTok to ask whether laws like the Texas bill would induce them to change their moderation policies on abortion-related content. None responded. However, experts say that the platforms might preemptively begin limiting content related to abortion. 

Last year, WIRED found that Meta was already restricting some abortion content on its platforms, regularly removing posts that referenced accessing abortion pills under rules barring the sale of “illegal or regulated goods." 

The Texas bill could also have major implications for search engines, making it more difficult for women to find accurate information about abortion services. So-called “crisis pregnancy centers”—operated by anti-choice organizations—often use promoted results to get themselves to the top of searches for abortion providers. 

“There’s effectively competition between pro- and anti-choice groups to win those slots at the top of Google search,” says Callum Hood, head of research at the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a nonprofit that tracks disinformation. “There will be no alternative in search results other than what anti-choice groups have to say about abortion,” he says. 

Neither Google nor Microsoft responded to requests for comment about how or whether search results or ads might be modified or restricted in response to the Texas bill.

Hood says he worries that censorship could lead ISPs to decide that hosting abortion-related websites carries too many risks. ISPs have previously blocked websites for illicit materials like child pornography.

“The easiest thing for them to say is just, ‘We're not going to host any website that’s to do with abortion. Full stop,’” says Hood. “It is going to create an incentive for them to just take simple steps, which is to avoid any ambiguity over whether or not they are facilitating access to information about abortion-inducing drugs.”

Marty says that, should the bill be enacted, activists will work out ways around it, as they have for previous restrictions. But she acknowledges that these strategies may still leave many women without critical information, because digital information has become so important.

Pro-choice activists and educators sometimes use QR codes, which can easily be printed as stickers or posters and left inconspicuously in public places to point people to abortion information. “Most of the activism has already and will continue to pivot to QR codes and other ways of providing informational links without the actual information being visible in a text form,” she says. “But even a QR code is a whisper network. You have to know that this is a thing to find the information on.”

[hasanyoneseenmyspoons]

The red-state drive to reverse the rights revolution of the past six decades continues to intensify, triggering confrontations involving every level of government.

In rapid succession, Republican-controlled states are applying unprecedented tactics to shift social policy sharply to the right, not only within their borders but across the nation. Just last Thursday, the GOP-controlled Tennessee House of Representatives voted to expel two young Black Democratic representatives, and Texas’s Republican governor, Greg Abbott, on Saturday moved to nullify the verdict of a jury in liberal Travis County. In between, last Friday, a single Republican-appointed federal judge, acting on a case brought by a conservative legal group and 23 Republican state attorneys general, issued a decision that would impose a nationwide ban on mifepristone, the principal drug used in medication abortions.

All of these actions are coming as red states, continuing an upsurge that began in 2021, push forward a torrent of bills restricting abortion, LGBTQ, and voting rights; loosening controls on gun ownership; censoring classroom discussion of race, gender, and sexual orientation; and preempting the authority of their Democratic-leaning metropolitan cities and counties.

This flood of legislation has started to erase the long-term trend of Congress and federal courts steadily nationalizing more rights and reducing the freedom of states to constrict them—what legal scholars have called the “rights revolution.” Now, across all these different arenas and more, the United States is hurtling back toward a pre-1960s world in which citizens’ basic rights and liberties vary much more depending on where they live.

[arieso226]

The Banning of Books

NO. 1

Books are intellectual properties that are increasingly challenged and criticized for their particular contents on race, sexuality, class, and gender, even fiction! Books aren’t just educational tools but forms of shaping individual experiences and values, and to be able to share the public is an essential part of our democratic society. The opposition claims that parents of young children have the right to keep their minds free and innocent of what is ‘controversial.’ A list of the books banned during this year is here if you wish to check it out.

NO. 2

Freedom of expression is one of our fundamental rights. Banning or censoring books violates individual rights, but how will children learn to express those individual ideas and thoughts if we suppress diverse perspectives? How will society move forward and evolve if we continue to shelter and limit knowledge? From Precocious Knowledge: Using Banned Books to Engage in a Youth Lens’, ‘‘The quest to protect the imagined innocence of ‘the young and inexperienced’ has endured and is today bolstered by differing organizations—Attempts to control language have a long history with youth; The implicit fear seems to be less about what language might do to teens and more about what teens might do with language. Obscenities can be used to wield power over adults or at least unsettle them. When we balk at a text because of its use of profanity, a racial slur, a homophobic remark, or any other language that might be deemed objectionable, we should consider if we are protecting our students or ourselves from feeling uncomfortable. Language that can be at times unnerving often feels reveals charged topics that demand messy and uneasy conversations.’’

NO. 3

In conclusion, this censorship is not only damaging our intellectual growth but another form of suppressing diverse perspectives, in turn trying to make a return to puritan society. Banning books is going to have the opposite reaction conservative politicians, groups, and parents are hoping for—instead of protecting young minds, it will only narrow their understanding of the world and deprive them of valuable opportunities for critical thinking. And no, I am not liberal, nor am I conservative (republican or democrat.) I am a citizen deeply concerned about the vast changes happening extremely quickly to limit and oppress the free flow of information, ideas, and expression. Children learn by example, and they express more than you give them credit for. They deserve the right to learn and explore freely.

[rogerharkness]

Mar 13 - I often joke that I survived Washington because I had low expectations, but last week’s hearing of the House Weaponization of the Federal Government subcommittee would have tested the lowest of my low expectations. The purpose of the subcommittee is to look into the politicization of US government agencies and its effect on our civil liberties. But last week’s inaugural hearing of the committee was not at all a good look for the Democrats, who brought nothing but insults for the witnesses.

Things got off on the wrong foot very quickly, as Democrat committee Members seemed less interested in what witnesses Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger had to say than in attacking the messengers. Ranking Committee Member Stacey E. Plaskett, a Democrat from the Virgin Islands, began by calling Taibbi a “so-called journalist” who poses a “direct threat” to people who disagree with the work he has done on the “Twitter Files.”

Taibbi, who to the likely dismay of the Democrats on the subcommittee is hardly a right-wing Republican, corrected Plaskett’s smear, pointing out to her that, "I'm not a so-called journalist. I've won the National Magazine Award, the I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism, and I've written 10 books including four New York Times bestsellers." In addition, Taibbi pointed out that most of his journalism career was spent at Rolling Stone Magazine, which is hardly a conservative political outlet.

The Democrat decision to make this hearing a partisan political issue and attack the journalists who brought us the truth about secret US government censorship-by-proxy of Americans who hold views unacceptable to government elites is extremely unfortunate. The Democrat decision to attack honest liberals like Taibbi for bringing us the truth is baffling. Taibbi and Shellenberger and the other journalists involved in exposing government malfeasance in the Twitter Files have done a great service to all Americans concerned about the collusion between government and corporations to silence speech that the government does not like.

Matt Taibbi posted his statement to the subcommittee as another episode in the “Twitter Files” series and it may have been the most disturbing release to date. In this release Taibbi documented what he calls the “Censorship-Industrial Complex.” This is the collusion not only between government and big tech to censor “wrong” views, but also those parts of the so-called “non-governmental” sector that are directly funded by government.

This “NGO” sector, it turns out, has been a key tool in the US government’s efforts to censor Americans who fail to toe the US government line on everything from Covid to Ukraine. The “non-government” organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Atlantic Council’s DFRLab, the Alliance for Securing Democracy and dozens more pose as simply good citizens concerned about disinformation while in fact they are mostly or completely funded by the US government to do the US government’s bidding.

Taibbi calls this the “absolute fusion of state, corporate, and civil society organizations,” but there is another word for it: fascism. And that is where we are headed in the United States unless all of us – conservatives, libertarians, liberals, and progressives - wake up and fight for the restoration of the First Amendment. ~Ron Paul

[dorklesblog]

I'm very ignorant when it comes to politics, government, and the philosophy of politics in general. But we only have 3 months until the election starts. I've seen lots of comments under your post describing that we must not engage in voting because we are only upholding a system which has disregarded it's citizens/the working class for a long long time.

The thing I don't understand is, while yes, our rights can be taken away under any political party, Democrat and Republican. And even though the parties have different values and policies. The values they do share are they only serve corporate interests and do not care for us.

However, I don't think we have enough time to be discussing a total revolution here (I'm going to be honest, I think I might be totally misunderstanding your post and please let me know if I am) but I do know that a communist or a socialist revolution will only work if an uprising or a revolution takes place if my knowledge is correct. We only have 3 months, what do we do in the meantime? Do we just wait until one day everybody decides to band up and say "Hey, we're not going to take this anymore?" Well, what do we do in the meantime? I realistically don't think we'll be able to spread the type of message you and your followers suggest if Republicans are elected. They will certainly try to censor any language they deem to “harm conservative values.”

This is just something I've noticed from people who are very far-left and who do not wish to vote. Please let me know if I completely misunderstood your post, I really am trying to understand these things.

I do not think voting is ineffective, our politicians actively and have been trying for years to restrict our vote for years. I do think that it doesn't work for everything that we want as a people. But to say it doesn't do anything is just a ludicrous statement.

ultimately communists aren't even telling you not to vote, the point is that it is completely ineffective action. when you ask 'why shouldn't we vote? we can vote and do other stuff' it is as if you had been proposing prayer as a solution to fascism and scolding anyone who said otherwise - even if your argument is 'there's no reason not to try', it implies an incredible and grave misunderstanding of what is and is not an effective means of political action. like... sure. go ahead and pray, to god or to Democracy, and buy fair-trade while you're at it, but if we're being honest, here, I think the defensiveness over it shows not genuine faith, but a desperation to engage with a system that clearly does not work, but whose alternative appears scary and unclear to you.

[lunarsilkscreen]

Why did Twitter Execs put up the conservative wall; and why did Elon Musk take it down?

This has some very hot takes. It's much simpler than you might be led to believe.

So in the pre-internet times; conservative and family values were all about censorship. You couldn't say certain things on TV or on the Radio without getting cancelled.

They had this power because it was very expensive to run a channel or show back then; and they not only didn't want to lose money;

The Republican party was all about Family Values and decency.

So we get to the Internet age; and maybe reasonably maybe not reasonably; Twitter and certain social media executives are starting to notice negativity and loss of subscribers on their platforms.

And; the reasoned; it's because the people wanted those Republican Family Values.

But; that's not how the internet works.

And so; many of these Conservatives were hidden behind a curtain under the umbrella that Republicans and Family Values want this.

They, in-effect, censored themselves.

However; because of this censorship; banning, blocking, sensitive content, profanity filters; a large portion of the internet also had their voices silenced.

The only Reason Musk removed that; is to showcase exactly what the conservatives and Republicans were saying behind that wall.

Which is how the American people came to terms with and understand exactly what it is they're voting for.

And he confirmed what "liberal" media were talking about.

It's not so much that he let the undesirables out; it's simply that they were legislating in that echo chamber and couldn't get out; and the citizens who thought they were voting for Family Values and Public Decency were voting for these guys; who couldn't hear their voices at all.