If you support free speech and restoring privacy and civil liberties, please become a supporter here. Thank you. | This section of Reclaim The Net - reserved for paid members only - is one of several deep dives each week into a specific topic. Upgrade to become a supporter to get extra content and support Reclaim The Net. |  | As the CDC's Director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky, concludes her controversial tenure, her revelations about the agency's decision to work hand in glove with the media to shape public opinion raise alarming questions about government overreach and the erosion of free speech.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Dr. Walensky did not mince words about her agency's attempts to shape the narrative concerning public health information through a process she terms "prebunking." This involved pre-emptive communication with media outlets to nudge them in a particular direction regarding health reports, ostensibly to curb misinformation.
But herein lies the crux of the issue – who decides what constitutes misinformation?
A closer look at the CDC's performance during the Covid-19 pandemic under Dr. Walensky's stewardship reveals a troubling history of mixed messaging and reports that seemed influenced by political machinations. The disturbing realization that the CDC's agenda was muddled by politics understandably eroded public trust. Dr. Walensky herself admitted to the agency's communication gaffes. However, the revelation that the CDC sought to shape the narrative by working with media outlets has been seen as deeply troubling from a free speech perspective.
Free speech is one of the cornerstones of a free society. Yet, the notion of a government agency engaging in "prebunking" is eerily reminiscent of information policing. This collusion with media outlets further blurs the line between independent journalism and government propaganda.
The stark political partisanship that enveloped Walensky's term was highlighted by a KFF study that revealed political affiliation as a significant predictor of Covid-19 vaccination. She pointed out that public health shouldn't be politicized. Yet, it is worrisome that the agency, under her watch, arguably engaged in its own form of information politicking.
Furthermore, the CDC's evolution under Dr. Walensky is alarming. Brian Castrucci, CEO of the de Beaumont Foundation, rightly pointed out that the CDC was once a somewhat obscure agency focused on advising health officials and conducting scientific studies. Now, it has metamorphosed into an institution with considerable public interface, all while struggling with its new-found role.
Transparency and unbiased information are essential for individuals to make informed decisions. Dr. Walensky urged Americans to fact-check information and consult trusted sources. The irony is stark – as she speaks of trust, her agency engaged in behind-the-scenes "prebunking" with media and suggests that the agency has a plan to continue it.
During her tenure at the CDC, Walensky was investigated over the CDC's censorship demands placed on social media platforms.
The departure of Dr. Walensky offers a chance for reflection and recalibration. It is imperative for her successor, Dr. Mandy Cohen, to address the fundamental issues of trust and transparency. The CDC must extricate itself from the business of information management and focus on being a credible, non-partisan source of public health information.
Citizens should remain vigilant and skeptical of any government attempts to police information. Dr. Walensky's parting words, and lack of introspection, serve as a chilling reminder of the fragility of free speech and the constant need to protect it from those who wield power. |  | Madison Square Garden Entertainment, the company renowned for its famed entertainment venues, is finding itself in hot water as it faces a federal class action lawsuit. The suit alleges that the company violated the biometric privacy ordinance of New York City and state privacy laws by employing a facial recognition system for security purposes.
M. Ross Arnel, the complainant in the lawsuit, contends that MSG covertly profited from the biometric data of visitors to its venues, which include the legendary Madison Square Garden and Radio City Music Hall. By collecting and utilizing biometric information, Arnel claims that MSG bolstered security, consequently rendering its venues more attractive to the public, which in turn led to an undue advantage.
We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.
The lawsuit takes an interesting turn, as it further alleges that MSG utilized the facial recognition technology as a strategic tool to keep out attorneys representing individuals or entities that might have conflicting interests with MSG or its affiliates.
"The Attorney Ban, which was adopted in July 2022, states in summary that MSG and any of its venues reserves the right to exclude any litigation counsel who represents parties adverse to MSG and its related companies," the complaint states.
M. Ross Arnel, who took legal action in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, shared his personal encounter, recounting how his face was scanned and matched against images in the company's database during his attendance at a Madison Square Garden concert in October 2022.
The New York City Biometric Law and New York Privacy Law form the bedrock of Arnel's legal case. The former prohibits private entities from selling or deriving profits from biometric data, whereas the latter bars the usage of an individual's likeness for commercial gain without their explicit consent. According to Arnel, MSG has not adhered to the statutes prescribed by either of these laws.
"Once a person enters a particular venue, his face is scanned by the technology which then compares his face and facial geometry with those on file in the database in order to make a match and to identify that person," the complaint alleges.
"Often other personal information is connected to the individual's facial geometry or vectors, such as their names, ages, addresses, social media accounts, information contained in their social media accounts or personal information gleaned from their social media accounts and other sources."
Arnel's lawsuit is comprehensive in its demands, seeking a plethora of compensations and reliefs. This includes statutory damages, actual damages, exemplary damages, equitable relief, and injunctive relief. Furthermore, the claim includes attorneys' fees and costs, as well as interest both before and after the judgment. |  | Save 50% - on this comprehensive service that scours the internet and databases, automatically getting your personal data removed from companies that shouldn't have it.
Incogni reduces the risk of your data being used nefariously, sold on, or used to impersonate you.
Data brokers exploit your personal information for profit, often without your informed consent. Opting out is possible but difficult by design. Incogni makes it easy so you can regain control over your personal data.
Incogni doesn't only remove your data from certain kinds of data brokers. Risk mitigation, recruitment, people search sites, financial information, and marketing data brokers – Incogni removes your personal information from them ALL.
The service also provides you with easy-to-follow reports so that you can actually see the work it's doing all while you rest.
It's available in the US, UK, EU, Canada, and Switzerland.
Give it a try and save 50% here.
Support businesses that support privacy and civil liberties. Thanks to Incogni for supporting Reclaim The Net. |  | The US House Committee on Appropriations has floated a budget proposal that, if passed, would ax government funding for the World Health Organization (WHO).
This proposal is a part of the Fiscal Year 2024 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, which aims to cut spending on what the committee believes are "low-priority activities and programs."
Besides putting the WHO's funding on the chopping block, the bill also proposes to terminate the government's engagement with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and to lay down a prohibition on funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the EcoHealth Alliance, and gain-of-function research. Furthermore, the bill takes a stand against government "misinformation" and "disinformation" programs.
As we outlined in our video report, the WHO's proposed Pandemic Treaty would grant the group more censorship and surveillance power.
However, the bill must navigate a winding road through Congress, and it remains uncertain that these proposed cuts will see the light of day.
Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) views this as a step forward but asserts that relentless follow-up is imperative for the bill to materialize. He had previously written letters urging actions to sever the ties and funding to the WHO. His concerns revolved around the alleged untenable consequences of continued involvement with the WHO.
On June 23, the proposal underwent subcommittee markup, an essential phase in the legislative process. Opinions were split, with Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.) and Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) supporting the defunding, citing the alleged ineffectiveness and failures of UN bodies, including the WHO.
During this time, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) held session concerning the WHO's proposed pandemic treaty and International Health Regulations amendments, witnessing vociferous opposition from experts and activists. Pamela Hamamoto, the lead US negotiator for the pandemic treaty, highlighted the necessity for international cooperation in health crises but affirmed that the administration would not support any measures undermining US sovereignty or security.
Additionally, Congress has seen an uptick in WHO opposition, with multiple bills demanding a cessation of funding or complete withdrawal from the WHO currently being considered. | If this stuff is important to you, please help out by becoming a supporter here. | FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE |  | Tensions are brewing in Michigan as a controversial hate speech bill, HB 4474, sails through the state House and now awaits the scrutiny of the Senate. The legislation, branded by critics as a Pandora's box, seeks to replace Michigan's Ethnic Intimidation Act and aims to criminalize actions that make individuals "feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened." A tangle in the bill lies in its vague wording, with the term "harassment" used as a jigsaw piece without a clear fit, and a potential First Amendment violation.
This bill, which is part of a legislative flotilla, introduces "sexual orientation" and "gender identity or expression" to the pantheon of protected classes. Felonious violators facing up to five years of incarceration and a fine reaching $10,000.
One formidable voice among them is distinguished Professor Emeritus William Wagner, a seasoned former federal judge and legal counsel in the US Senate. "Make no mistake about it. Those advocating for this legislation will wield these policies as a weapon capable of destroying conservative expression or viewpoints grounded in the sacred," Wagner shared with The Daily Wire.
A shadow falls on the bill's ambiguities. It states, "'Intimidate' means a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable individual to feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened..." The open-ended language, critics argue, is akin to an inkblot in which intimidation and harassment may be interpreted based on an individual's perspective and a local prosecutor's whims.
Wagner warns that under HB 4474's auspices, a person might claim intimidation by a religious sermon or conservative article if they feel their "perceived gender identity" is assailed. He adds that the legislation retroactively adjudicates the criminality of an action, in stark contrast to the Constitution's bedrock principle of due process.
Furthermore, Rep. Angela Rigas, an emerging Republican voice, believes the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes could lead to weaponization against conservatives. "The state of Michigan is now explicitly allowing the gender delusion issue to be used as a 'protected class.' This opens up numerous issues when it comes to the courts and the continued weaponization of the system against conservatives," Rigas remarked to The Daily Wire.
HB 4474 tiptoes around constitutionally protected speech, with a brief mention but no guiding light on how it reconciles with First Amendment concerns such as religious liberty. The text merely notes that intimidation doesn't encompass "constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose."
As the gavel waits to fall, HB 4474, which passed the Democrat-controlled House with a tight margin of 59-50, sits in the Senate chambers. The bill may find swift passage and receive the gubernatorial stamp from Michigan's Democratic Governor, Gretchen Whitmer. Conservatives, outnumbered in the legislature, are pinning their hopes on the judiciary as their bastion.
"Unfortunately here in Michigan, we have lost all three branches of power in our state...there is no current way to fix these issues without higher courts becoming involved," Rep. Rigas articulated. |  | The ethereal realm of Discworld, a creation born from the prodigious mind of Sir Terry Pratchett, now finds itself clashing with the terrestrial considerations of the present day.
Discworld, a fantastical universe teetering atop four mammoth elephants, who in turn are poised upon the carapace of a cosmic turtle, has been issued a content warning by its publisher, Penguin Random House.
As reported by The Telegraph, the caution is confined to the audiobooks and seeks to provide context, stating, "The first book in the Discworld series – The Colour of Magic – was published in 1983. Some elements of the Discworld universe may reflect this."
With the commencement of the Discworld series dating back to 1983, the delightful mix of characters and landscapes authored by Sir Terry has since flourished to encompass over 40 books.
The publisher's sudden imposition of the warning perplexed and agitated fans. However, Penguin Random House delineated that the notice should not be misconstrued as a trigger warning, but rather a note meant to situate the reader in the timeframe of the book's origins.
This cautionary footnote by Penguin Random House draws a parallel to a prior episode where the publishing house amended Roald Dahl's books, an act that instigated international dismay. It is important to note that this development in the context of the Discworld series has not been a result of similar modifications to the text itself. |  | Amidst the growing tension over financial institutions blacklisting customers with certain viewpoints, the UK Treasury is supposedly stepping in to ensure that freedom from debanking is safeguarded. The Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, is reportedly troubled by the actions of some banks and financial service providers who have been shutting down accounts based on customers' opinions. Andrew Griffith, the City minister, has been tasked with probing the issue.
In the coming weeks, the Treasury is expected to publish the results of a consultation initiated after PayPal froze the accounts of several free speech groups. The recommendations from this consultation are intended to regulate the behavior of banks and payment providers. One of the expected recommendations is that these institutions should give a more formal notice period before closing accounts and should clearly state the reasons for doing so. Furthermore, if banks don't comply with the set rules, regulators would be able to take appropriate measures.
The recent spark in controversy was ignited when Nigel Farage, a prominent proponent of Brexit, announced that his bank account had been terminated. Similarly, Reverend Richard Fothergill, an Anglican vicar, stated that his account with Yorkshire Building Society was shut down shortly after he criticized the bank's position on LGBTQ+ issues during Pride month. Yorkshire Building Society responded, asserting that they do not close accounts based on differing opinions but may do so if a customer is rude, abusive, or discriminatory.
In an age where banks and payment service providers play a vital role in society, there are growing concerns that they might be denying services to individuals expressing lawful views. The Treasury has emphasized the need to protect freedom of speech, even for those who may have extreme views, as long as they are within the bounds of the law. | Reclaim The Net exists because of paid readers. If you can, please help out and become a supporter. Thank you.
| | Thanks for reading,
Reclaim The Net
| | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment