Biden Forms ‘Disinformation Board’ to Go After Critics — Official Heading It Played Role in Shutting Down Hunter Biden Story
By: Kyle Becker
This is so typical of Let’s go Brandon and his wannabe authoritarian dictatorship with him as the figurehead and the bicoastal secular progressive elites in positions of power pulling the strings for this vile and evil regime.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Biden Forms ‘Disinformation Board’ to Go After Critics — Official Heading It Played Role in Shutting Down Hunter Biden Story
by Kyle Becker 30 minutes ago
The Biden administration is abandoning all semblance of Constitutional government by forming a “Disinformation Board” within the Department of Homeland Security to target the Democratic Party’s critics.
The provocative move — carried out in the aftermath of Elon Musk’s stunning purchase of Big Tech platform Twitter — appears to be a desperate attempt to rein in growing discontent at the Biden administration online.
The political intentions behind the maneuver are revealed by the DHS official that has been tapped to lead the administration’s version of the ‘ Ministry of Truth .’
“President Biden has set up a toothless ‘disinformation’ board headed-up by a woke so-called expert who’s against free speech and tried to pour cold water on the Hunter laptop scandal,” the Daily Mail reported .
“Nina Jankowicz will head The Department of Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board as executive director, Politico Playbook reported Wednesday morning,” the report noted.
“Homeland Security Secretary Alejandor Mayorkas did not disclose any powers that would be granted to the dystopian-sounding board while addressing lawmakers on Wednesday,” the report added. “He explained that the board would work to tackle disinformation ahead of the November midterms, particularly in Hispanic communities.”
“But Mayorkas did say that the new board would come under the Biden-era Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3), meaning it would have no powers to crack down on disinformation and will instead try to combat it by throwing money at what it sees as problems,” the Mail reported.
Jankowicz announced that she would be leading the Disinformation Board on Wednesday.
“Cat’s out of the bag: here’s what I’ve been up to the past two months, and why I’ve been a bit quiet on here,” Jankowicz said. “Honored to be serving in the Biden Administration @DHSgov and helping shape our counter-disinformation efforts.”
She also added her official portrait and said, “Now that I’ve got it: a HUGE focus of our work, and indeed, one of the key reasons the Board was established, is to maintain the Dept’s committment to protecting free speech, privacy, civil rights, & civil liberties.”
However, despite her purported interest in protecting “free speech” and “civil liberties,” she issued a recent statement that strongly suggests she is no fan of Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter.
“Last week I told @NPRMichel: I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities… which are already shouldering… disproportionaite amounts of this abuse,” she claimed.
The DHS official has been involved in controversies regarding purported ‘disinformation’ with huge political consequences.
“When stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop started emerging, several outlets, social media sites and left-leaning disinformation experts claimed that it was just misinformation coming from Trump and others on the right,” the Daily Mail noted.
“In an October 2020 report, Jankowicz shared her skepticism of the contents of the laptop and the claims it belonged to Hunter,” the report added.
“We should view it as a Trump campaign product,” Jankowicz had told the New York Daily News.
The Disinformation Board headed by Jankowicz would be forbidden under the U.S.’ Constitution’s First Amendment from demanding censorship without respecting Americans’ due process rights.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” the First Amendment states. Congress is not authorized to pass enforceable laws that violate the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court has ruled on free speech cases that specifically involve making ‘false statements.’ There are more than “100 federal criminal statutes punish false statements in areas of concern to federal courts or agencies, and the Court has often noted the limited First Amendment value of such speech.
Although SCOTUS has recognized that false statements knowingly issued to federal courts and government agencies may be punishable under the law, citizens’ non-libelous false statements made in the public forum generally fall under First Amendment protection.
“In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, four Justices distinguished false statement statutes that threaten the integrity of governmental processes or that further criminal activity, and evaluated the Act under a strict scrutiny standard,” Justia noted.
In regards to the Stolen Valor Act that would outlaw falsely claiming military service, Justice Kennedy suggested that upholding this law would ‘leave the government with the power to punish any false discourse without a clear limiting principle.’
“Justice Breyer, in a separate opinion joined by Justice Kagan, concurred in judgment, but did so only after evaluating the prohibition under an intermediate scrutiny standard,” Justia added. “While Justice Breyer was also concerned about the breadth of the act, his opinion went on to suggest that a similar statute, more finely tailored to situations where a specific harm is likely to occur, could withstand legal challenge.”
There have also been Supreme Court cases denying the government’s ability to censor or chill speech due to citizens allegedly taking ‘offense.’
“Legislation intended to prevent offense of individuals and groups of people has also been struck down as unconstitutional,” Justia notes . “For example, in Matal v. Tam , the Supreme Court considered a federal law prohibiting the registration of trademarks that ‘may disparage . . . or bring . . . into contempt[ ] or disrepute’ any ‘persons, living or dead’.”
“The Court held that the disparagement provision violates the Free Speech Clause as ‘[i]t offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend’,” SCOTUS held.
Whether or not the Disinformation Board actually takes action against Americans’ rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Biden administration is sending a chilling message loud-and-clear: It is no advocate of free speech and will do everything within its power to limit it if deemed politically advantageous to do so.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
90 visitors
Musk, who is no conservative, had created a massive panic just by stating Twitter should be politically neutral.
progressives are freaked out by the prospect of a level playing field.
LOL
Question - do you want total 100% government control of your life where they manage every piece of your life and make all your decisions? Or do you want to be able to maintain some personal control of your life and the ability to make your own decisions that impact you?
If you lean towards the latter then you have some Libertarian in you after all...
It's like everything else in life, the degree of something matters. Too much of one thing is bad but a mix of things can be better.
Unfortunately this is the type of response I expected to see, completely ignoring what I said and deflecting to slam the Republican party. Until we can remember that broad-brushing any complaint or criticism is as wrong as what someone is trying to point out we can never fix the underlying problems.
guess you missed my comments the other day about Trump then. He is after all a member of the Republican party. So your comment, about all I can say is
A SWING AND A MISS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Strike 2
Some people just can't help themselves. They remain deliberately obtuse and twist their logic into pretzel shapes to support their side for everything while refusing to see the world.
Comment 2.1.5 is a fraud.
Comment 2.1.16 is nonsensical gibberish.
Comment 2.1.15 references the lunatic fringe reactionary extremist raving in Comment 2.1.5, correctly and appropriately describing it as a fraud.
How that could be the "antithesis" of freedom of expression and free speech can't possibly be rationally supported and can only be dismissed with contempt.
Dictionary Powered by Oxford Languages
.
Who are you referring to when you state this as FACT?
Nobody ever said living in a free society came without risks.
Ah, so you agree then that disasters can be caused by permitting disinformation in the name of free speech. Good for you. Hope you or your loved ones never experience such a disaster, notwithstanding your agreeing to the risk.
Even when they have benefited greatly from it, they reject it!
Did God appear as a burning bush and write those "inalienable rights" on stone tablets with fingers of fire? Do you have proof that those "inalienable rights" were given by God, because if you can't prove it then maybe they're not so "inaleinable" as you preach, pastor. Besides, "freedom" has its limitations no matter where you are in this world, which is something that only a fool would deny.
LOL. If the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America WERE the Communist world's most hated document, then for a lot of reasons I would have known that, so it's nothing more than yet another ingnorant comment made in an attempt to deflect from America's present problems.
It's possible. But compared to the disasters we've seen in the last century alone that involve the suppression of free speech, I'll go with more free speech every time.
Your position is understandable, given where you live. But...out of curiosity, what sort of disaster is the Chinese government preventing by banning YouTube?
Let's be very clear, America always has "present problems". They are never caused by too much free speech.
Let's also be very clear, the term "disinformation" was coined by the American far left to describe pretty much anything they don't agree with.
For decades, their true talent has been redrafting and rephrasing far-left philosophy to make it seem more palatable to the American mainstream. Over the years, they've spun every kind of bullshit yarn from "public libraries are a form of socialism" to "people are born gay" to "enforcing immigration law is racist" to "tax cuts are a government expenditure" to "a co-pay for birth control is misogynist" and hundreds of others. When those lunacies are soundly rejected, they change the names and reintroduce them.
The true danger here is accepting their suppression of opposing ideas. When "there is no medical evidence to suggest people are actually born gay" is labeled "hate speech" and is suppressed, we're a less free society. We've simply re-introduced anti-blasphemy laws but changed the religion to The Church of Liberal Politics.
I did not say ALL disasters can be caused by disinformation. My comment was not a generalization, so please don't try to put words in my mouth by twisting what I said. Different governments have different rules.
I'm quite happy with the dictionary definition of the term, whether or not you agree or disagree with the dictionary. But then I only majored in English Literature, was Editor-in-Chief of my university newspaper, had to use perfect English to draft legal documents, and taught high school English for six years and privately for a number of years after that, so maybe your interpretation of the word is better than mine, eh?
The remainder of your comment is devoted to establishing something that both sides are participants in doing - so? I didn't drink bleach or inject a disinfectant in order to prevent catching the virus.
I personally agree with the Zero-Covid policy, and nobody is starving to death - even Chinese people are entitled to complain about inconveniences, and western media are ecstatically exaggerating them. Personally, I feel a lot safer here because of how it's being handled.
We originally went through a complete lockdown where I live and it was NOTHING like that. I recall there was an incident recently of someone overreacting and killing a dog and the social news sites here recorded millions of complaints about that, but the dystopian horrors you describe? Not a peep, so I don't believe it or it is a created video meant to stir the pot. No respectable news site has shown or even referred to such a video, but I'm sure the Washington Examiner would if it could.
I just spoke to my wife about her cousins, two separate families related to her who live in Shanghai. She has kept in touch with them, and they have been locked down for more than a month. However, their life has been no different for them as it was for us when we were locked down. Food and medications and any other necessary matters such as required repairs are all ordered by internet and delivered to the door. They have not been starved, and they have not suffered at all. So this is the REALITY of it, and I know that there are those who will do whatever it takes to demonize China, and suckers repeat it, or for some reason WANT to believe it, or have a bone to pick with China and I don't think I have to point at whom I mean by that.
There is no way my wife's relatives in Shanghai have been lying to her, and there is no way my wife is lying to me. You can believe what you want, and I'll believe what I iknow to be correct. Sure, the methods to actually END the spread of the virus are extreme, but that's what it takes. That's what it took where I am and I didn't need to scream from my balcony AND IT WORKED. But you can take one or two horror stories and make a movie out of it, can't you. You can even write an article like the one you linked to. But then, they are there and I am here and I believe what I see with my own eyes AND what my wife's relatives tell her, and what she tells me.
This is a more accurate story, one that I can believe. It is not published by a Chinese site, but on npr, which I consider a relatively unbiased and fair news site. This relating of the Shanghai situation is more in keeping with what my wife's Shanghai relatves have experienced and told my wife, and it DOES speak of momentary drakonian situations, such as the fencing, and food shortage, but also that they were corrected , and the amusement that the residents have with the messages from the drones.
When this Shanghai building went into COVID lockdown, my WeChat message group blew up
(LINK to the npr report) ->
It's no surprise to me that there are American news sites that will accentuate the American motive of demonizing China by cherry-picking the worst things they can find to report, and using incendiary language as in the report you linked to. Sure the people screamed when the fences went up, and what YOUR reports will NEVER indicate is that THEY WERE THEN IMMEDIATELY TAKEN DOWN. The npr report makes it clear that life for those locked down is not so bad as YOU want it to be, and the final result of Zero-Covid is not going to be even in same universe as 80 million infections and almost a million deaths in the "Number One Nation".
Given your experience, you'll no doubt be exceedingly familiar with large number English words American liberals have redefined to advance their views.
Or maybe you think "woke" is still a verb.
LOL. Although to me "woke" is still the past tense of the verb "wake", at least I'm aware of the more recent tendency to bastardize the language, and you're right - not only do I not know what the liberals mean by it, I really don't give a damn. I'm too old to learn a different language, and although I've lived in China for almost 16 years I can't speak Chinese either, so CUL8R.
You can believe what you cannot have personal knowledge about yourself if you want and I'll believe what I have personal knowledge of and I really don't give a damn about your bullshit. Spread your propaganda as much as you want about China - I know how much you hate China because is controls your religion from proselytizing and prevents the public advertising of Christianity such as posting your crosses up on top of high steeples. LOL I'm sure that Xi JInping ignores your attempts to insult him - after all, you know very well that sticks and stones can break bones, but names will never hurt. Your comments are so fucking childish I can't stop myself from laughing at them. Why don't you go to some other site where the people will take your comments seriously and stop dirtying this one with them.
Neither do I, but we'll at least agree that a Webster definition of a word is rarely of value once the word in question becomes a "buzzword".
I don't think I can agree with that, Jack. For example, the original meaning of the word "woke" is still of value, and only if its context is meant to change its meaning to a "buzzword" can it be meaningful to those who want it to be so. I woke up at 6:30 a.m. this morning and the "buzzword" meaning didn't even cross my mind.
By the way, ALL my words are "buzzwords". LOL
But we are describing various words that have been "buzzworded". The traditional definitions are intended far less frequently than the new bastardized versions.
I actually thought about that as I typed the previous post. LOL
Nobody can deny that it is possible to cause horrible disasters by permitting disinformation in the name of "Free Speech
nobody can deny that is possible to cause horrible disasters by suppressing free speech.
nobody can deny that it possible to cause horrible disasters by governments pushing disinformation through state propaganda outlets.
Perfection is impossible. Pointing out that no system is perfect as a way to draw false equivalencies is a dishonest debating tactic. Sad to say, some use it constantly.
Congratulations for admitting that perfection is impossible. And just as Joe E Brown said at the end of the movie Some Like It Hot, "Nobody's perfect", and that includes you and me. So consider that yet another dishonest debating tactic, because if you are arguing that saying perfection is impossible is dishonest, then you are also speaking for yourself, for whatever you post.
Disinformation. Democrats have learned a new word and have decided to milk it for all it is worth. Looks like they are finally starting to realize calling everyone a racist has played itself out. Except for Joy Reid of course, she hasn't gotten the memo.
Has the far right in America no self awareness at all?
Far more than the far left; who seem to think the only free speech that matters is theirs.
So what is going on here other than 'we' are not supposed to believe anything in the left wing press but everything in the right wing press or vice versa? It's stunning that y'all don't see your opposites in the mirror; one used to go to a circus for such visual effects. But hey, we are all propagandists now ... ah equality,eh?
Conversely...has the far left in America no self awareness at all?
... does the far right? Now that we've settled that dumbfuckery let us return to widening the gulf in the name of today's oxymoron, a.k.a. partisan truth.
Democratic Party propaganda paid for by the taxpayer.
Perfectly in line with Biden's party above country agenda.
Can you say Nazi Germany.