Oct 16, 2020

Poll - Is Social Media The Propaganda Wing of Democrats?

Social Media Censoring The Neutral New York Post - But Why Not The Pro Democrat Atlantic?

Prolific author and free thinking personal injury attorney, Michael Ehline.

We have seen time and time again. If it's a pro-Biden hearsay story by the Atlantic with zero evidence, but about Trump and negative, social media's so-called "fact-checkers" remain silent as to "fact check" labels. As will be discussed, all of this is allowed to protect social media from being sued for DEFAMATION lawsuits, an area of law I am uniquely qualified to discuss as a personal injury lawyer. Conversely, republicans claim if it's about Obama, Biden, or a Marxist inspired organization like BLM, even where there is first-hand evidence, the story is removed from public view or labeled with a "fact check," making it hard or impossible to click, especially on a smartphone.

IMPORTANT: Continue scrolling after the poll, or click here to scroll faster so you can finish reading this expose about big tech, Trump, and Joe Biden.


Fill out my online form.

Fill out my online form.

Or perhaps Silicon Valley's woke, college-aged fact-checkers will create a fact check that discusses something not even presented by the negative Biden story and use that as a basis to label the story as "dangerous."

Republicans say that the pro democrat Snopes family is famous for creating a set of facts not even argued by a particular story and then labeling its own facts it just made up as "false," or partly true, etc.. In law, we would tell the court, "objection, nonresponsive," or "objection, assumes facts, not in evidence." But as noted above, social media is using legislation designed to keep its platform-neutral as an excuse to not be neutral, say the conservatives and constitutionalists.

Just to give you an idea of the biased Snopes model used by Facebook and its accomplices, read some of the snippets about where Snopes is coming from:

Lacapria [a pro democrat operative responsible for Snope's fact checking] even tried to contradict the former Facebook workers who admitted that Facebook regularly censors conservative news, dismissing the news as “rumors.” (Source).

Lacapria aka Snopes:

" . . . once wrote: “Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth–or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.” (A simple fact-check would show that food stamp fraud does occur and costs taxpayers tens of millions.)" (Source).

Los Angeles civil rights and injury lawyer, Michael Ehline, Esq.Or as in the recent case about what if true, appears on its face to be Joe Biden's clear and obvious nepotism involving the Ukraine collusion case, all of the social media will just ban your account if you dare re-share a story about this event. Republicans say this even applies to public officials who dare question "comrade" Biden's bid for the presidency. Republicans claim that if you are not a leftist, expect to be targeted or even lose your job if you disagree with the deep state propaganda administrators at the DNC, aka Twitter, Facebook, Instagram. Even with an underground video of social media fact-checkers admitting they shadow ban and target Trump supporters for suspension, Democrats argue that anyone not on board is a "conspiracy theorist," or shill.

In support of the arguments from the right, it is quite clear that social media administrators are mainly pro democrat. Also, clear, fact-checkers like Snopes are biased towards the left. In fact, many prominent Democrat officials work behind the scenes with Facebook and other social sites to decide what is newsworthy or not. But Democrats counter that Republicans can watch Fox News if they don't like their left-wing fact-checking/censorship.

For example,

"Former Kamala Harris press secretary is top Twitter communications official, announced removal of Trump clip." (Source).

"Kamala Harris asks Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to consider suspending Trump’s account" (Source).

Perhaps linking to the bombshell Biden report instantly hidden by social media from potential undecided voters may hurt my website with Google, Facebook, or Twitter? This is the same reason the poll numbers are wrong. People are terrified that big tech will harm their web rankings by baking an anti-Republican ranking signal into their algorithm, called "blacklisting."

Anecdotal evidence suggests that Trump voters are registering as Independents and Libertarians to avoid being picked up by Google's algorithm and losing their online presence. In other words, just as in East Germany, people are terrified of what they see as Stasi like antics. So they are taking countermeasures to protect what was once taken for granted.

Still, no matter. As a neutral, objective lawyer who has supported both Democrats and Republicans, I feel it remains far too important of a story and an issue to simply ignore it. Below I lay out some of the key issues to what appears to be more than obvious big tech censorship and the possible long-term implications. On Wednesday, October 14th, the New York Post published an earthquake of a story about former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter being involved in the more shady business in Ukraine than we originally thought.

While the Biden campaign denied their official calendar showed that this had taken place, Hunter demanded in emails that "burner phones" be used. So it's likely there would be nothing in the official Biden calendar. In law, we would say the Biden campaign demurred with a non-responsive reply. And the NY Post showed it in black and white. This is the same evidence the FBI had during the democrat's attempts to impeach Trump. In other words, far more evidence exists here than the false story about Trump in the Atlantic, or the now-debunked Russia collusion story, bought and paid for by the Hillary for president campaign.

You will recall that republicans alleged Hillary used her friends in the left-wing press, CIA, and at the FBI to distract from her illegal, unsecured private server she used to conduct official U.S. business, claiming that Trump was in bed with Russia. Hillary claimed the server in her basement restroom was guarded by the Secret Service and that somehow made it "secure." Her presidential campaign and her allies within the FBI and CIA used a fake dossier they paid for, linking Donald Trump's campaign to Russians. And she did so to try and to convince a FISA judge to monitor U.S. citizens who were working for then-candidate Trump. Social media did nothing to fact check the story.

In other words, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook did NOTHING to try and prove the veracity of ANY negative story about Trump, no matter how thin the evidence. In fact, just the opposite is true. By doing no fact-checking, less educated readers (or those subjected to what Republicans say is four or more years of anti-American college campus political reprogramming) "ASSUME" the fake news about Donald Trump is true. In the present case, there were several compromising photos of Hunter Biden, including him with a crack pipe in his mouth.

Democrats and their alleged friends on Facebook and Twitter say there is nothing to see here, move along. They even fail to mention that this evidence was turned over to allegedly pro-Obama operatives at the FBI before the anti-Trump impeachment campaign over Ukraine. Of course, according to reports, like the false FISA evidence used to spy on the Trump campaign, pro-Obama FBI agents buried the evidence.

Had the computer repairman not kept a copy of the Hunter Biden hard drive, the public would have been shielded from this evidence, possibly forever. Altogether, the photos and the emails likely mean that the former VP is in serious political hot water. But with his willing accomplices in the press and social media, only Fox News and a few conservative talk shows know about the story. In other words, independent voters will never know about the story. And this is the real news!

Republicans say that even Josef Goebels would have been proud of how easily what they call leftist political organizations like Twitter, Facebook, Google, Instagram, WaPo, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, Newsweek Atlantic, etc., calling themselves "news" were able to suppress such a valuable, newsworthy story. Even a few older, more educated Facebook users connected between Nazi tactics and social media censorship. Take a look at an image post that one Facebook user re-shared.

Image of Facebook User Account Resharing Image Comparing Mark Zuckergurb to Josef Goebels, Minister of Nazi Propaganda during the Third Reich. Admired by the Stasi and KGB.

Republicans say that like the Nazis, social media and the press believe only they have the right to decide the news and that the American people are too stupid to do their own fact-checking. No, a 20 something-year-old kid at Google or Facebook who became "woke" at his learning institution gets to decide what your news will be today so say the older crowd. Many older folks still remember the Soviet Warsaw pact and the murderous Castro regime. So their understanding of leftism is far different than the version taught by liberal professors and anti-white, critical race theorists. But like it or not, these people are called fact-checkers by Democrats and censors by those who claim to support the U.S. Constitution.

However, far more important to the internet's future is what the big tech giants did next. Both Facebook and Twitter actively and intentionally restricted the spread of the story. They put up warnings that the story was "dangerous" and did not allow it to be shared via direct messages! For those attempting to click on the story, they were given a warning first. This is a watershed moment for the internet and our political system. If we are not careful, the big tech giants and their pro-Democrat billionaires will decide what we read and can even think.

Orwell, Social Media, And The Coming One Party System.

Orwell may have been on to something; it's just that his fear it would come from the right was off. Instead, it comes from big tech using populism to advance its position economically. Big tech is even helping communist China with its social credits system that only allows pro-communist party people to travel or even work at a job or profession. Does this sound eerily familiar to what is happening on U.S. college campuses, or what big tech is doing right here, right now under the guise of "fact-checking."?

So if you are not part of the sought single-party system, are white, or a Christian, Republicans say your ability to feed your family or even publicly hold an unpopular opinion is over. In fact, Communist China even funds pro-Democrat college organizations to this very day, despite Trump's efforts to cut off anti-American foreign interference into our educational system. So our jobless kids are coming out of college wearing Che Guevera T-shirts with worthless degrees that cannot find them jobs. Making matters worse, what their professors told them seems true. No one will hire, me, it's because of systemic racism or some other slogan taught on campus. And now laced with student debt, these ready-made, unemployed activists start demanding democrat politicians erase their student loans and seek government handouts, say Republicans. And it all appears to be "made in China."

But to counter this, Democrats say anyone who disagrees with them is a racist, bigot, and homophobe. With slogans such as this, Republicans say there is no use debating the issue. The more you debate, the more ANTIFA or BLM people, many of them anarchist college professors, show up at your house or business with firebombs and negative online reviews about your business. Democrats counter that unless you agree with them, you are an outcast.

Anti-Republican Censorship Expands?

If Joe Biden gets elected, don't expect the DNC's propaganda wing, aka social media, to become fairer to those who don't support big government and discrimination against white people. Under the guise of "woke," "social justice," reparations must be paid, and freedom-loving people must pay up with suppression of their rights of free expression says the right. As if the situation wasn't strange enough, we saw Twitter go well beyond in their attempt to censor the Hunter Biden story. Frustrated by the tech giants censoring the New York Post's story, the Republican Senate Committee decided to place the article on their own website.

However, Twitter decided to also pull down that effort, as well. The story was hosted on the Senate Republicans' website, not from the New York Post itself. Still, Twitter decided to censor the article. On the link, when someone tried to access it read a stark warning.

Even the White House Press Secretary was censored by so-called "fact-checkers."

Kaighleigh McEnan censored by social media Nazis?

It stated: "Warning: this link may be unsafe." It added, "The link you are trying to access has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially spammy or unsafe, under Twitter's URL Policy." Twitter used the same warning on the New York Post article. Senate Republicans posted a video of the link being censored in real-time by Twitter. Unfortunately, this was not the beginning of the end of the censorship.

What Is Section 230 And Why Do Republicans Say Pro Democrat Social Media "Providers" Must Be Stripped Of Its Protections?

Section 230 of Title 47, United States Code provides that:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230).

The efforts of major tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter to censor a major story right before an election is alarming enough. However, the effort is geared only towards one side. Similar stories about Trump's supposed ties with Russia or his private tax returns were not censored in the least. In fact, on the sidebar on Twitter, the company went one further.

It included an explainer for readers stating that Joe Biden did not play a role in canning a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Hunter. The snippet said that this was confirmed by the [anti-Trump] Washington Post. The main issue here is that Joe Biden was not only involved, he also bragged about using his power and influence to thart a criminal investigation of his son by the Ukrainian govenment, or he would withhold billions in foreign aid. He said it proudly on video, in front of a crowd! Why would Twitter so quickly throw up such a defense of the former Vice President unless it was highly political?

How can any of these so called news agencies and social media companies believe they can patronize the American people in such a way as this, asks the right. Watch the Biden Quid Pro Quo admission video below and see for yourself.

Biden Admissions on tape

These actions seem to violate the elements of Section 230 of FCC regulations. Section 230 is a 1990s legacy part of the FCC code regarding platforms. It was intended for internet platforms to be able to moderate content, including those that violate their terms of service. However, the changes and censorship-- if any-- are supposed to be neutral. However, as we have seen with the election this year, the results have been anything but.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is now under serious scrutiny, including by Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley. And now Ajit Pai, the head of the FCC, is looking at it more closely, as well.

"In a statement, Pai said the decision came after the FCC’s general counsel determined the agency has the legal authority to interpret the statute. The Department of Commerce petitioned the FCC to “clarify ambiguities in section 230” after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in May. The order, which came after Twitter added fact-check labels to Trump’s tweets for the first time, directed the FCC to set new rules on platforms’ protections under Section 230."

Watch The Video Tutorial - Learn More About Publishing Statements Constituting Defamation Of Character Here:

What does it mean when a defamatory statement was published to a third person? A defamatory statement is published to a third person simply means that a statement, whether written or printed, is communicated to someone other than the plaintiff, whether it be in printed form or by word of mouth.

That's simply all it means. It's just a statement made that was false, that was somehow distributed or communicated to a medium of people, other than, or it could be one person, but other than the plaintiff.

See the Video Transcript Below:

Transcript 00:00

"what does it mean when a defamatory

00:01 statement was published to a third

00:03 person a defamatory statement being

00:06 published to a third person simply means

00:09 that a statement whether written or

00:11 printed is communicated to someone other

00:16 than the plaintiff whether it be in

00:18 printed form or by word of mouth that's

00:20 simply all it means is just a statement

00:23 made that was false that was somehow

00:25 distributed or communicated to a medium

00:27 of people other than it could be one

00:29 person but other than that plaintiff." End Transcript.

What Changes May Happen?

As noted above, in exchange for being nneutral and apolitical, social media sites are not deemed publishers. Because of this, they can republish false and defamtory statements and not get sued. But instead, consveratives and libertarians argue that these companies are burying true news and allowing clearly false stories. For exaple, they may aloow or promote a recent story in the Atlantic with ZERO fact checking. Much of what will happen next depends on who wins in November. Not just Donald Trump or Joe Biden, but who controls both houses of Congress. As a matter of fact, the results may affect whether or not there will be fuller scrutiny or audit of the big tech giants' actions. If they could do this so close to an election, what is going to stop them from doing so again and again and again?

Furthermore, the more that the tech giants can get away with this sort of behavior, the bolder they will be. The upcoming election is vital for many reasons. In many ways, freedom of speech and expression will likely be at least two of the major issues. I know it affects my vote and I hope that it will for you, too.

Michael Ehline is a top personal injury and civil rights attorney based out of Los Angeles. He has successfully aided hundreds of clients and studies internet law and politics. He writes a legal blog on major issues of the day here.

Other Works Cited:

Need to schedule an appointment for legal advice in a city near you? Reach out to a Los Angeles, California personal injury lawyer specialist near you or another location or practice area as follows:

Torrance wrongful death lawyer, Torrance car accident lawyer, Torrance motorcycle accident lawyer.