Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

French Constitutional Court stands up for free speech in striking down “anti-terrorist” law

French judges have made it clear that watching disagreeable content does not constitute a conspiracy to commit a violent act.

Published

on

7,175 Views

The French Constitutional Court has struck down a piece of legislation that would criminalise the viewing of what the French government deems to be “terrorist” websites.

The court ruled that the legislation was an extreme and disproportionate infringement on the freedom of expression and that the provisions of the legislation were neither necessary nor adequate, given provisions of existing laws used to fight genuine terrorism.

The now annulled law, proposed to imprison those found guilty for two years, in addition to forcing them to pay a fine of €30,000.

The Court’s ruling could have implications throughout Europe and the wider world, as governments salivate at the prospect of punishing people for viewing online content.

There are several fatal flaws in the French legislation, beyond the very valid legal opinion derived by the Constitution Court of France.

First of all, there has never been any legitimate scientific study that has been able to prove a link between viewing violent content and committing violent acts.

During the 1980s, the wives of prominent US Senators attempted to pass legislation restricting the sale of heavy-metal and contemporary R & B music records and tapes, under the guise that violent or erotic lyrics have a negative effect on listeners. At the time, no scientific study was able to confirm any such linkage.

This theory was put to the test in US courts in two separate lawsuits. In 1986, the singer Ozzy Osbourne was sued by the parents of a teenager who killed himself. The complaint alleged that Osbourne’s 1980 song “Suicide Solution” was responsible for their son’s act of self-inflicted violence.

The court found that there was no link between listening to the song and the boy’s suicide.

A similar case was filed in a California court in 1990 against the heavy-metal band Judas Priest. Here it was once again alleged that the band’s recording of a song originally recorded by the band Spooky Tooth, “Better by You, Better than Me”, was reponsible for the attempted suicide of two teenage boys.

The court in this case found that there was no link between listening to certain kinds of music and committing acts of self-harm.

While few today would argue that heavy-metal music is actually harmful, just a few short decades ago they did. Today, individuals of the same kidney are arguing that watching videos and reading the literature of terrorist groups is harmful, but there is still on scientific evidence suggesting that their fears are true.

If everyone who has ever watched a terrorist beheading video was literally insane enough to act it out, the view counter on such videos would indicate that there would be far more international terrorism than there presently is, or ever has been.

Furthermore, there are two other problems with the kind of legislation struck down in France.

First of all, it allows exceptions for journalists and researchers who view terrorist content online. What though constitutes a journalist in 2017?

Today, there are many people who are not specifically employed or accredited as journalists who de-facto produce journalism whether on their own websites, websites operated by others or on social media.

Do you really trust various deep states to determine who is and who is not a “journalist”, in an age where those same governments are trying to censor an unambiguously legitimate journalistic outlet like RT? I for one certainly do not trust such people in this capacity.

Then one gets into the even murkier issue of what constitutes terrorist content. In Ukraine, the Donbass freedom fighters are considered terrorists, but in most of the rest of the world they are not. In the United States, Saudi Arabia and some of Europe, the Lebanese political party Hezbollah, which has ministers in the governing coalition, is considered a terrorist organisation, but in the vast majority of the world including in Russia and China, they are not.

The Turkish President recently called Israel a “terrorist state”.  Does this mean that a Zionist from the Netherlands should be arrested in Turkey for logging on to his favourite websites while at a professional conference in Istanbul?

While groups like ISIS/Daesh and al-Qaeda are almost universally condemned, beyond this, there is an incredibly dangerous slippery slope.

Donald Trump’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley recently called Iran a sponsor of terrorism, even though there is no evidence to prove Iran does anything but fight terrorism. Should Iranian media viewers in the US all be imprisoned for disagreeing with Nikki Haley’s baseless assumption? The answer, for any fair minded individual is an unambiguous: NO!

With other European countries including Germany and the UK considering similar legislation as the one struck down in France, people ought to think twice before rushing to criminalise viewing any online content, no matter how disagreeable.

For those who actually are conspiring to commit an atrocity, there are age old statutes on the books in almost all nations, that simply ought to be enforced adequately in order to combat the genuine threat of terrorism.

Perhaps the inadequacy of certain countries to enforce such legislation, is the real reason for taking the cowards way out and seeking to imprison people for the crime of having eyes and viewing something they disagree with. After all such a method is easier than actually going after legitimately violent people.

For those who actually want to see terrorism destroyed, there is actually a strong case to be made in favour of watching terrorist videos in order to understand what anti-terrorist forces like the Syrian Arab Army are up against.

Marine Le Pen is correct – everybody should watch videos of ISIS atrocities

Below is an English translation of the full opinion of the French Constitutional Court:

“The Constitutional Council was seized on October 9, 2017 by the Council of State of a priority question of constitutionality concerning article 421-2-5-2 of the penal code, in its drafting resulting from the law n ° 2017- 258 of February 28, 2017 relating to public security.

These provisions reinstated, under a new wording, the offense of habitual consultation of terrorist websites whose Constitutional Council had censored an initial drafting by its decision n ° 2016-611 QPC of February 10, 2017. Article 421-2-5 -2 of the Penal Code, in this new wording, sanctions a penalty of two years imprisonment and 30 000 euros fine the fact of consulting in a usual way, without legitimate reason, a service of communication to the public on line advocating or provoking the commission of acts of terrorism and involving images or representations of willful attacks on life. The purpose of this offense is to prevent the indoctrination of

It was argued, in particular, that the freedom of communication was disregarded by those provisions since the infringement of the contested provision was neither necessary, given the legal provisions already in force, nor adequate and proportionate.

By its decision of today, the Constitutional Council recalls its consistent jurisprudence inferring from Article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789 that in the present state of the means of communication and with regard to the development of public services and the importance of these services for participation in democratic life and the expression of ideas and opinions, the freedom of communication implies the freedom to access such services. services. On the basis of Article 34 of the Constitution, it is open to the legislator to enact rules of a kind to reconcile with the exercise of the right of free communication and freedom to speak, write and print the pursuit of the objective of combating incitement and provocation to terrorism on online public communication services, which contributes to the objective of constitutional value of safeguarding public order and preventing crime. However, freedom of expression and communication is all the more valuable as its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Infringements of the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective pursued. write and print the pursuit of the objective of combating incitement and provocation of terrorism on online public communication services, which is part of the constitutional value objective of safeguarding public order and preventing offenses. However, freedom of expression and communication is all the more valuable as its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Infringements of the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective pursued. write and print the pursuit of the objective of combating incitement and provocation of terrorism on online public communication services, which is part of the constitutional value objective of safeguarding public order and preventing offenses. However, freedom of expression and communication is all the more valuable as its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Infringements of the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective pursued. incitement and provocation to terrorism on online public communication services, which is part of the constitutional value objective of safeguarding public order and preventing crime. However, freedom of expression and communication is all the more valuable as its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Infringements of the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective pursued. incitement and provocation to terrorism on online public communication services, which is part of the constitutional value objective of safeguarding public order and preventing crime. However, freedom of expression and communication is all the more valuable as its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Infringements of the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective pursued. public order and the prevention of infringements. However, freedom of expression and communication is all the more valuable as its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Infringements of the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective pursued. public order and the prevention of infringements. However, freedom of expression and communication is all the more valuable as its exercise is a condition of democracy and one of the guarantees of respect for other rights and freedoms. Infringements of the exercise of this freedom must be necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the objective pursued.

The Constitutional Council adds that, since the enactment of the impugned provisions, the legislature has supplemented the enactment of the legislative provisions previously in force in its decision of February and reproduced in paragraphs 7 to 11 of today’s decision. by adopting, by Law No. 2017-1510 of 30 October 2017 strengthening internal security and the fight against terrorism, new individual measures of administrative control and surveillance to prevent the commission of acts of terrorism. He infers from this that in view of the necessity requirement of the infringement of the freedom of communication,

As regards the adaptation and proportionality requirements for the infringement of the freedom of communication, the Constitutional Council notes that, if the impugned provisions provide that, in order to fall within the scope of the offense which they establish, consultation must be accompanied by the manifestation of adherence to the ideology expressed on the sites consulted, this consultation and this event are not likely to establish by themselves the existence of a will to commit terrorist acts. These provisions thus punish with a sentence of two years imprisonment the mere fact of consulting several times an online public communication service, without the constituting element of the offense constituting the terrorist intent of the author of the consultation. In addition, if the legislator has excluded the penalization of the consultation when it answers a “legitimate motive”, the scope of this exemption can not be determined in this case, notably because a person adhering to the ideology conveyed such sites may appear to be one of the legitimate reasons given by the legislator. This results in uncertainty about the legality of the consultation of certain online public communication services and, consequently, the use of the Internet to search for information. terrorist intent of the author of the consultation. In addition, if the legislator has excluded the penalization of the consultation when it answers a “legitimate motive”, the scope of this exemption can not be determined in this case, notably because a person adhering to the ideology conveyed such sites may appear to be one of the legitimate reasons given by the legislator. This results in uncertainty about the legality of the consultation of certain online public communication services and, consequently, the use of the Internet to search for information. terrorist intent of the author of the consultation. In addition, if the legislator has excluded the penalization of the consultation when it answers a “legitimate motive”, the scope of this exemption can not be determined in this case, notably because a person adhering to the ideology conveyed such sites may appear to be one of the legitimate reasons given by the legislator. This results in uncertainty about the legality of the consultation of certain online public communication services and, consequently, the use of the Internet to search for information. if the legislator has excluded the penalization of the consultation when it answers a “legitimate motive”, the scope of this exemption can not be determined in this case, notably because a person adhering to the ideology conveyed by these sites seems likely to be one of the legitimate examples of reasons given by the legislator. This results in uncertainty about the legality of the consultation of certain online public communication services and, consequently, the use of the Internet to search for information. if the legislator has excluded the penalization of the consultation when it answers a “legitimate motive”, the scope of this exemption can not be determined in this case, notably because a person adhering to the ideology conveyed by these sites seems likely to be one of the legitimate examples of reasons given by the legislator. This results in uncertainty about the legality of the consultation of certain online public communication services and, consequently, the use of the Internet to search for information. in particular because a person who adheres to the ideology conveyed by these sites seems likely to come across one of the legitimate reasons given by the legislator. This results in uncertainty about the legality of the consultation of certain online public communication services and, consequently, the use of the Internet to search for information. in particular because a person who adheres to the ideology conveyed by these sites seems likely to come across one of the legitimate reasons given by the legislator. This results in uncertainty about the legality of the consultation of certain online public communication services and, consequently, the use of the Internet to search for information.

The Constitutional Council deduces from all the foregoing that the impugned provisions undermine the exercise of the freedom of communication which is not necessary, adapted and proportionate. He declares them therefore unconstitutional by giving immediate effect to this declaration”.

Advertisement
Comments

Latest

The End Of The US Unipolar Moment Is Irreversible

The United States is in the terminal phase of its unipolar moment.

Published

on

Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation:


The past weeks have shown how part of the American establishment is weighing the pros and cons of the Trump administration’s strategies around the world. I have a strong feeling that in the coming weeks we will see the destabilizing effects of American politics, especially towards its closest allies.

A disastrous flip of events appears to be on its way, in case Trump were to lose the November midterm elections (the House and Senate elections). If this were to happen, the Trump administration would probably exploit the Russia gate conspiracy claiming that Moscow had now acted in favour of Democrats. Trump could argue that Moscow was disappointed by the lack of progress in softening US sanctions against Russia; indeed, by Trump’s measures against Russia (expulsions, sanctions, property seizures) and its allies (China, Iran and Syria).

Trump would not hesitate to claim Russian interference in the midterms to aid the Democrats, citing intelligence reports. He would say that Russia aims to create chaos in the US by placing roadblocks in the way of attempts to “Make America Great Again” and handing the House and Senate to the Democrats. He would use the electoral defeat to blame his accusers of getting aid from Russia. In doing so, he would be accelerating the implosion of his administration in an all-out war with the establishment. The mainstream media would dismiss Trump’s accusations against the Democrats of collusion with Russia as a conspiracy theory of an unravelling presidency. All this, summed up, would lead to the Democrats having majority in both houses, easily proceeding to the impeachment of Trump.

Italy is piggybacking on the US, operating side by side with Washington to expand its role in North Africa, especially in Libya. However, Rome will have to offer something in return to please Trump. Evidence points to the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) as the quid pro quo, the US encouraging Italy to complete it in order to put pressure on Germany’s North Stream II project and undermine Russian gas deliveries to the EU. I have the impression that the only card available for Italy to play (and which interests Trump) is an endorsement of Washington’s positions on Iran, given that Italy already shares in common with Washington differences with Paris and Berlin on many issues. In this sense, Conte’s words about US intelligence info on the JCPOA paves the way for further decisions:

“”I didn’t take a specific stand. I said we are willing to evaluate the necessity to take more rigorous stances if the (nuclear) accord is shown to be ineffective. We are waiting to have elements of intelligence, Italy would like to evaluate it with its EU partners”

As evidence of Washington’s failed strategy towards Iran, India continues to buy crude oil from Iran, increasing the amount in the last month by 52%. China is also increasing its importation from Iran. Meanwhile, Iran is working with other countries to circumvent the US dollar in order to sustain their mutual trade within a new framework of agreements. Washington is especially disappointment with New Delhi, with American officials continuing to reiterate that India’s intentions align with Washington’s. Since November, with the imposition of counter-sanctions on countries that continue to work with Iran, Washington’s bluff will become evident to everybody, much to the disappointment of the Trump administration.

In the meantime, relations between Canada and Saudi Arabia have almost completely broken down on account of human rights. Ambassadors have been expelled and there is a continuing war of words, with trade between the two countries being brought to a stop. This is the latest example of the divisions manifesting themselves within the Western elites, with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Trump administration being in opposition to the likes of France, Germany and Canada.

What is also clear is that the issue of energy is central to Washington’s strategy. Between criticism of the German Nord Stream II and invitations to Italy to finish the Trans Adriatic Pipeline, it is clear that both the Trump administration and the policy makers of the deep state are strongly concerned about what actions allies and enemies could take to overcome the pressure brought to bear by Washington on the issues of energy, Iran, and sanctions. This shows that the US is very fearful of de-dollarization, especially coming from its allies.

Bypassing sanctions with currencies other than US dollar, or creating creative finance structures that bypass the SWIFT payment system, are the only means of maintaining relations between countries in spite of Washington’s sanctions. The US strategy is limited in the short term and certainly harmful in the long term for US Dollar financial hegemony.

That Washington’s allies are even entertaining such possibilities places US financial hegemony at great risk in the long run. This worries the American deep state a great deal, even without Trump, who in any case will not be in charge past 2024 (should he be re-elected in 2020).

One of the points of greatest tension is precisely this strategic difference between the Trump administration and the policy makers in the deep state (AKA Langley and Foggy Bottom). While the former can increase the pressure on allies (through NATO, the JCPOA, TTIP and TPP) to obtain immediate solutions and benefits, the latter must above all consider the effects in the medium and long term, which are often harmful for US interests. The imposition of sanctions on Iran, and the obligation of European allies to comply with this directive, is a prime example.

Another of Washington’s strategies revolves around the price of oil. The United States would have no problem seeing the price of crude oil skyrocket. Secretly, many in the administration hope that Iran will take the first false step by closing the Strait of Hormuz (Teheran will not make this move as things stand now); some even hope that the crisis between Canada and Saudi Arabia will have some impact on the cost of crude oil.

Even trade war and tariffs should be seen as part of Trump’s short-term strategy to demonstrate to his base that something is being done against countries that he thinks are taking advantage of the United States. In reality, Trump knows, or should know, that there is no way of stopping China’s growth, a result of globalization that has been the engine of free-market capitalism, making the western elite richer than ever before. Trump deceives his base with trade wars and tariffs, but in the long run the costs will be borne by American consumers, many of whom are Trump’s voters.

Trump thinks in the very short term, constantly aiming to present himself before his electors with a list of ticked boxes ( Peter Lavelle of Crosstalk gets trademark of this definition), confirming that he is fulfilling his electoral promises. In this way he hopes to win the midterms in November. To succeed in this endeavor, the economy must pick up to a gallop (for now this is happening thanks to a series of tax cuts and the continuous pumping of easy money from the Fed) and he must put pressure on his allies as well as aggressively confront Iran, Russia and China through sanctions, cutting energy supplies and forcing Tehran to negotiate once again the nuclear agreement.

What many analysts struggle with when trying to analyse Donald Trump is that there is no overarching strategy uniting his actions into a coherent policy. Trump acts extemporaneously, often with a very short strategic outlook and for internal political motivations.

Nevertheless, if there is something that worries the deep state, it is the long-term impact of tariffs, trade war, sanctions and impositions on allies; or, to put it most simply, de-dollarization. If there is anything that scares the Trump administration, it is remaining entangled in a destabilizing war with Iran that would lead to the early end of the Trump presidency and destroying its legacy, as Bush’s legacy was destroyed by Iraq.

In all this uncoordinated and inconsistent behaviour, there is the hope of a major rise in the price of oil that would help slow down China’s growth and transform the US shale-gas industry into an ultra-profitable business, further boosting the US economy and allowing Trump to present further evidence to his base of his ability to improve their lives.

The United States is in the terminal phase of its unipolar moment and is struggling to come to terms with the downsizing of its role in the world. Its ruling elite cannot accept the prospect of sharing power, preferring to oppose by all means possible the transition to a world order involving more powers. If this situation is already complex for any superpower enough to manage, a president has been elected who has little regard for compromise and mediation.

Ultimately, in addition to an obvious problem in defining Washington’s role in the world over the next few years, the United States finds itself with a president who is in almost open warfare with an important part of the US establishment. The deep state is still living on the hope of impeaching Trump to halt the loss of US influence, deluding themselves that things can return to how they were at the height of the unipolar moment in the 1990s.

Continue Reading

Latest

America’s Lengthening Enemies List

17th years in Afghanistan and America’s list of enemies continues to grow.

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick J. Buchanan


Friday, deep into the 17th year of America’s longest war, Taliban forces overran Ghazni, a provincial capital that sits on the highway from Kabul to Kandahar.

The ferocity of the Taliban offensive brought U.S. advisers along with U.S. air power, including a B-1 bomber, into the battle.

“As the casualty toll in Ghazni appeared to soar on Sunday,” The Wall Street Journal reported, “hospitals were spilling over with dead bodies, corpses lay in Ghazni’s streets, and gunfire and shelling were preventing relatives from reaching cemeteries to bury their dead.”

In Yemen Monday, a funeral was held in the town square of Saada for 40 children massacred in an air strike on a school bus by Saudis or the UAE, using U.S.-provided planes and bombs.

“A crime by America and its allies against the children of Yemen,” said a Houthi rebel leader.

Yemen is among the worst humanitarian situations in the world, and in creating that human-rights tragedy, America has played an indispensable role.

The U.S. also has 2,000 troops in Syria. Our control, with our Kurd allies, of that quadrant of Syria east of the Euphrates is almost certain to bring us into eventual conflict with a regime and army insisting that we get out of their country.

As for our relations with Turkey, they have never been worse.

President Erdogan regards our Kurd allies in Syria as collaborators of his own Kurdish-terrorist PKK. He sees us as providing sanctuary for exile cleric Fethullah Gulen, whom Erdogan says was behind the attempted coup in 2016 in which he and his family were targeted for assassination.

Last week, when the Turkish currency, the lira, went into a tailspin, President Trump piled on, ratcheting up U.S. tariffs on Turkish aluminum and steel. If the lira collapses and Turkey cannot meet its debt obligations, Erdogan will lay the blame at the feet of the Americans and Trump.

Which raises a question: How many quarrels, conflicts and wars, and with how many adversaries, can even the mighty United States sustain?

In November, the most severe of U.S. sanctions will be imposed on Iran. Among the purposes of this policy: Force as many nations as possible to boycott Iranian oil and gas, sink its economy, bring down the regime.

Iran has signaled a possible response to its oil and gas being denied access to world markets. This August, Iranian gunboats exercised in the Strait of Hormuz, backing up a regime warning that if Iranian oil cannot get out of the Gulf, the oil of Arab OPEC nations may be bottled up inside as well. Last week, Iran test-fired an anti-ship ballistic missile.

Iran has rejected Trump’s offer of unconditional face-to-face talks, unless the U.S. first lifts the sanctions imposed after withdrawing from the nuclear deal.

With no talks, a U.S. propaganda offensive underway, the Iranian rial sinking and the economy sputtering, regular demonstrations against the regime, and new sanctions scheduled for November, it is hard to see how a U.S. collision with Tehran can be avoided.

This holds true as well for Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Last week, the U.S. imposed new sanctions on Russia for its alleged role in the nerve-agent poisoning of ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the British town of Salisbury.

Though the U.S. had already expelled 60 Russian diplomats for the poisoning, and Russia vehemently denies responsibility — and conclusive evidence has not been made public and the victims have not been heard from — far more severe sanctions are to be added in November.

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev is warning that such a U.S. move would cross a red line: “If … a ban on bank operations or currency use follows, it will amount to a declaration of economic war. … And it will warrant a response with economic means, political means and, if necessary, other means.”

That the sanctions are biting is undeniable. Like the Turkish lira and Iranian rial, the Russian ruble has been falling and the Russian people are feeling the pain.

Last week also, a U.S. Poseidon reconnaissance plane, observing China’s construction of militarized islets in the South China Sea, was told to “leave immediately and keep out.”

China claims the sea as its national territory.

And North Korea’s Kim Jong Un apparently intends to hold onto his arsenal of nuclear weapons.

“We’re waiting for the North Koreans to begin the process of denuclearization, which they committed to in Singapore and which they’ve not yet done,” John Bolton told CNN last week.

A list of America’s adversaries here would contain the Taliban, the Houthis of Yemen, Bashar Assad of Syria, Erdogan’s Turkey, Iran, North Korea, Russia and China — a pretty full plate.

Are we prepared to see these confrontations through, to assure the capitulation of our adversaries? What do we do if they continue to defy us?

And if it comes to a fight, how many allies will we have in the battles and wars that follow?

Was this the foreign policy America voted for?

Continue Reading

Latest

In Private Meeting, Facebook Exec Warns News Outlets to Cooperate or End Up Dying in ‘Hospice’

“Anyone who does care about news needs to understand Facebook as a fundamental threat.”

The Duran

Published

on

Via Common Dreams


During a closed-door and off-the-record meeting last week, top Facebook executive Campbell Brown reportedly warned news publishers that refusal to cooperate with the tech behemoth’s efforts to “revitalize journalism” will leave media outlets dying “like in a hospice.”

Reported first by The Australian under a headline which read “Work With Facebook or Die: Zuckerberg,” the social media giant has insisted the comments were taken out of context, even as five individuals who attended the four-hour meeting corroborated what Brown had stated.

“Mark doesn’t care about publishers but is giving me a lot of leeway and concessions to make these changes,” Brown reportedly said, referring to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. “We will help you revitalize journalism… in a few years the reverse looks like I’ll be holding hands with your dying business like in a hospice.”

As The Guardian reported on Monday, Facebook is “vehemently” denying the veracity of the comments as reported by The Australian, referring to its own transcript of the meeting. However, Facebook is refusing to release its transcript and tape of the gathering.

Brown’s warning about the dire prospects for news outlets that don’t get on board with a future in which corporate giants like Facebook are the arbiters of what is and isn’t trustworthy news comes as progressives are raising alarm that Facebook’s entrance into the world of journalism poses a major threat to non-corporate and left-wing news outlets.

As Common Dreams reported in July, progressives’ fears were partly confirmed after Facebook unveiled its first slate of news “segments” as part of its Facebook Watch initiative.

While Facebook claims its initiative is part of an effort to combat “misinformation,” its first series of segments were dominated by such corporate outlets as Fox News and CNN.

Reacting to Brown’s reported assertion that Zuckerberg “doesn’t care about publishers,” Judd Legum, who writes the Popular Information newsletter,argued, “Anyone who does care about news needs to understand Facebook as a fundamental threat.”

“In addition to disputed quote, there are also Facebook’s actions, which are fully consistent with the quote,” Legum added. “We desperately need to develop alternative delivery mechanisms to Facebook.”

Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Advertisement

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...

Advertisement
Advertisements

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement

Advertisements

The Duran Newsletter

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending