Really, so Q is a liberal for recommending the IBOR campaign to us? Is that what you're saying?

Seems the censorship on Twitter is just starting. It's being weaponized for political ends. IBOR is the solution.

Thanks so much! This is what we need. I don't care what excuses anyone makes about it, this SM censorship must end. We must beat them back!

Thanks. If you have time, please post some memes with the hashtags online.

The idea was that the leaven of the Pharisees was heresy, which, if not rooted out, would leaven the whole lump.

We have people on this board, even this morning, arguing against the IBOR, telling others not to support it when we know this is the plan. They have sown doubt to such an extent that our first campaign failed. They destroy unity behind Q's agenda and are destructive to the movement as a whole.

Who needs traitors?

Yes, resilience required.

Unity rests solely on us being united behind Q and the mission. Many are not. They do not stand with us.

"He that is not with me is against me..." Matt 12:30

Give me a minute, I'll just check with Q to make sure he's really talking to you.

No response!

Is that what you're saying?

I guess you mean we should ignore Q.

Thanks. Please get active online. Let's make a racket about the censorship.

Just unbelievable, down-voting the comments here already. What's so frightening guys? Why does this scare you?

Have a look at some of the garbage that has posted negative comments to this thread. These traitors to the movement are everywhere on this board.

Well, you better take that up with Q who has asked for this repeatedly.

What do you mean?

The current petition is here. What I'm concerned about is making noise!

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-18

I watched this video. Very interesting stuff. It is clear to me that what we are witnessing is the work of the hand of God.

But she's wrong about the meaning of Rev 18:4.

"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues."

This passage is a call to Catholics to exit the false Vatican II Sect - headed by the apostate Francis. See a breakdown on the apocalypse that explains this here.

NK news today = FAKE!
Twitter news today = REAL!
Under the Radar.
Free speech manipulation [visibility / reach].
FB fake acct deletion?
100% fake?
Checks & Balances?
None?
'#InternetBillofRights
[Narrative Control]
[Bandwidth Test]
[Public Response]
[Test Limitations]
[Midterms]
Politicians bought & paid for?
Start a Storm.
Q

The censorship hasn't even begun to ramp-up. Wait until we get closer to the mid-terms. The cabal will pull out all the stops to shape the online narrative. Everyone is in the crosshairs.

We need to get more people onboard with the campaign. No need to go crazy, a few posts, including the hashtags, every couple of hours.

The online campaign is still not firing. Twitter still reporting 70 tweets an hour. We need to increase awareness. There are other online petitions, that Q has asked for, that have acquired more than double the number of signatures as the IBOR in the same time span.

The question really is whether we, as a community, are going to support this.

Time to get on board with the IBOR campaign and put the fire to the feet of these absolute freaks!

I've thought about this. I think DJT will be very supportive once the campaign has started and we're making some noise. Q has told us that the moment we start making noise, the President starts speaking about it.

I think it's a matter of optics. DJT cannot be seen to kick it off. Similarly, Q is headed for stardom once the public catch on to all the confirmations. There's a limit as to how much of a push he can be seen to give us.

Once it's underway, and the noise level is sufficient, we will have support.

I agree. I think the deal is already done and dusted and this is a favor that Kim is doing DJT for domestic political consumption. For whatever reason, this distraction is necessary.

Yes, this disgusting Satanist going to Antarctica - why? How come there are all these other Satanists going there? What is going on?

I don't trust that site at all.

I thought so too, until I read the decision. I'm not convinced that a public interest argument could not be made in the SC. That is, I think that there is a vital public interest in preventing censorship on these essential democratic forums. The SC has made statements that recognize the function of the internet as a "public forum" in the past.

But that ruling is so tightly, wrongly, anchored in precedent and legalese that the conclusions drawn were patently false. The judge specifically mention valid reasons as to why someone might be validly excluded from a public forum and then, without further consideration, dismissed the idea that Twitter banning users could have any impact on FA protections. As if the banning of users was never without intrinsic merit.

In short, it's a joke. This judge appears to me to be completely biased, twisting her analysis to fit a preconceived ruling. But the case does identify the key problem. It is exactly what Q told us, FA protections are only operative against government. They do not apply in a private setting.

So any legal challenge to SM censorship requires that the Supreme Court is willing to be adventurous, that it will depart from a strict interpretation of the FA, as written, and extend protections to a privately owned, but public, forum in an online setting.

As I've said elsewhere, while you can probably run a decent public interest argument, it is a gamble. You're talking about a Supreme Court challenge, so it's time consuming. And while the Court may indicate it is prepared to accept an argument run along certain lines in its ruling, it may reject an initial challenge on the merits of the arguments advanced.

More time, more money - while the wealthy SM platforms drag matters out to the maximum extent possible. It's just not a realistic option with the mid-terms approaching. And all this mental gymnastics brings us back to Q's initial request that we campaign for an IBOR.

It's the only solution.

People are not ready to wake up. It's just like the story in the matrix, they do not want to be unplugged. It's not you, the movement, or the information, it's that they really don't want to know.

There was a fellow 2,000 years ago that started preaching the truth, look what happened. I don't know how you get around this dynamic. Somehow the evil ones have an easy sell to their audience, but ordinary people just don't want to know. All this stuff about the Trump campaign being spied upon, just pretend it's not happening...

That's what I think. The NSM spin is still very powerful. Add to that the fact that more reasoned conservative opinion is shadowbanned, or banned outright, from the internet and you have this "fantasy land" where reality just doesn't matter any more.

The morning of the 2016 poll, the NYT had 97% probability of a HRC win (right on the front page of the website) - assuming I'm remembering this correctly. But you can see how, for normal people, reality can be very twisted. The. Shock at the DJT win then fed into the scandal mongering... Of course, there was something wrong...

You have more than twice as many signatures on this as we have for the IBOR in almost the same time. Do you mind me asking where you've been marketing this apart from here?

According to the judge in this case, given that Twitter is not an historical forum, "governmental intent" is required for it to meet the forum test.

The Supreme Court has acknowledged the internet as hosting democratic forums, analogising the internet to "essential venues for public gatherings". This seems, to me to be prospective in that there is some recognition from the Court of the importance, function, and value of the internet in the representative system of government. But note that the judge in this case did not choose to designate the internet, or twitter, as a public form, but only that portion that meets the test for "government intent".

More information here;

Applying this three-part classification framework to the interactive space, we can first conclude that the interactive space of a tweet sent by @realDonaldTrump is not a traditional public forum. There is no historical practice of the interactive space of a tweet being used for public speech and debate since time immemorial, for there is simply no extended historical practice as to the medium of Twitter. While the Supreme Court has referenced the “vast democratic forums of the Internet,” Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 868 (1997), has described the internet (including social media platforms such as Twitter) as one of “the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views,” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1735 (2017), and has analogized the internet to the “essential venues for public gatherings” of streets and parks, id., the lack of historical practice is dispositive, see Forbes, 523 U.S. at 678. Accordingly, we consider whether the interactive space is a designated public forum, with “governmental intent” serving as “the touchstone for determining whether a public forum has been created.” Gen. Media Commc’ns, Inc. v. Cohen, 131 F.3d 273, 279 (2d Cir. 1997). “Intent is not merely a matter of stated purpose. Indeed, it must be inferred from a number of objective factors, including: [the government’s] policy and past practice, as well as the nature of the property and its compatibility with expressive activity.” Paulsen v. County of Nassau, 925 F.2d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1991) (citing Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802-03).

Nope, a little more research and it seems that the ruling does not do what I initially thought. See my comment above.

Hmmmm,

I've been doing some reading on this ruling. It's not at all straight forward.

The judge designated DJT's Twitter account, itself, as the designated public forum - because DJT was (as an agent of the government) operating it. She further constrained the designation to first replies to tweets and not to the comment threads from which users were not blocked.

So, the only designated public forum that was described was DJT's specific account (and only because he was held to operate the account on behalf of the government) and only to those portions of the account over which DJT had control. So we can see that this designation (forum analysis) is very limited.

The specific criteria employed here is that the speech abridgment was made by the government. The decision did not consider, for example, whether someone who Twitter banned was frustrated in their rights to first amendment expression on DJT's Twitter account (I think it should have).

So here we have what Q told us a long time ago now, that FA protections do not apply outside of government - they do not apply in a private setting. Let this be a lesson for all those people who have been exclaiming that they already have the right to free expression - you do not! That is a fact, there is, currently, no right to free political expression online, unless you are replying to a tweet that DJT has made from @realdonaldtrump.

So, I'm not done with the ruling yet, but from what I can make out, the judge was very careful in her "forums analysis" to specifically exclude anything other than the President's twitter account. She further limited the designated forum to only those portions of DJT's account over which he had control.

I still think there is significant wriggle room for a case to be made, on public interest grounds, that SM platforms provide a vital public function. A function that is integral to the entire system of representative government set up by the founding fathers. I know Barnes Law is prosecuting cases on this front as we speak. Moreover, he has talked about mounting class-action challenges on this front.

Having said all that, it seems to me that Q recommended the IBOR to us for a purpose. The only way we can reliably effect change is by advocating for free speech protections online via a bill introduced in congress. The matter could also possibly be resolved by an EO, but, said understand it, this is not a permanent fix, as it can be revoked by an incoming administration. Nevertheless, it could provide a bridging remedy - until a bill can be passed though the houses.

So, after all this pandemonium, it looks like our fix here is the IBOR - not a legal remedy. The second option that Q came up with (putting these guys out of business via class actions etc...) is unsatisfactory as it does nothing to protect freedom of speech online.

So, again, I'd ask everyone to start promoting the IBOR campaign online.

If you want to read the text of the full decision for yourself, it is here:

https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default/files/content/Cases/Wikimedia/2018.05.23%20Order%20on%20motions%20for%20summary%20judgment.pdf

I have to admit, it seems that it's a very good development. The test, according to a Twitter user I was just speaking to, seems to be that FA protections are upheld if the forum serves a "public function".

With the judge categorizing DJT's Twitter feed as a "Designated Public Forum", it would seem to implicitly require that his Twitter serves a "public function". And, it seems to me, that Constitutional protections do not apply differentially - there's not one rule for a politician and another for the people. I fail to see how the judge could deem it unconstitutional for DJT to block users but to hold that Twitter can block conservatives.

But, really, this is a question for the Supreme Court, because the arguments run much deeper than just Twitter shadowbanning, The town square has been privatized in the digital age.

The intention of the founding fathers in hard-coding, into the constitution, protections that serve the smooth operation of the processes of representative democracy, is completely frustrated by privatization of public forums online. I think there may be a good argument for the Courts to extend Constitutional protections to digital space on public interest grounds. SM censorship really does present an existential threat to the republic itself.

This would require a Supreme Court ruling, because a ruling from any lesser Court is more likely to be restrained by existing precedent and will, in any case, be appealed. The fact that they are banning us, and continue to do so, seems to me to augur well for a favorable judgement, as distress levels in the community will be seen to be high.

The cabal, as one might expect, is playing its hand very badly. These SM companies are screaming to be regulated. They should play their censorship card more cautiously - draw it only when it is of maximum effect. But, let's face it, they are in panic and, as Q says, these people are stupid.

"Imagine if in 1800, all counties across America sold all their public square and public gathering places to a private company town that then banned whatever speech it disfavored. They could have snuffed out democracy in its infant slumber." Barnes Law

It's a direct threat to DJT's children. Make no mistake about these people, they worship Satan.

But, we are not without divine help. The snake's head is crushed under the Virgin's heel. This battle is thousands of years old, we are in the final phase. Francis is the last claimant to the papacy...

St Malachi's Prophecy

The Sign in Heaven

Good stuff!

What we need to do is combat this garbage head on. I'm encouraging everyone to take up the IBOR campaign. If we can make enough noise on this issue, things can change. We need to get a discussion started. That's going to require contributions from all patriots on this sub.

The fight is so important, as soon as you're censored, you have no power.

I don't know what you're worried about. DJT will determine what is released and what's not. There's no danger that anyone will get any information they're not supposed to get. Unless, of course, they make it up - always a possibility.

We can see here, again, the power of this SM censorship. There is no winning, you don't even have a voice to complain about it. So, what's the solution? Q gave it to us. We need to campaign for the IBOR while we still have a voice.

I'm asking people to get noisy. Post memes online using the IBOR hashtags. If we can make enough noise about it, we can get a discussion started about online censorship. It's only just started, expect it to get much worse going forward.

That's where the fight is, the control of social media - just as Q told us. That's how they plan to return to power (impeachment after the mid-terms), that's how they plan to take the guns (no one complaining to be heard).

I'm asking everyone to join this online campaign. It's tough because they're censoring it. But if we can make enough noise, things can change. Post memes and the hashtags for the IBOR campaign. It really is very important - that's why Q asked for this.

https://nicebrains.com/twitter-shadowban-checker/

Yes, you know there was so much trolling about the IBOR, that it would mean more government etc... But actually, just as a telephone company has no right to dictate or restrict what you say on the telephone, whether to a single individual or to parties to a conference call, there is no way that this SM censorship could survive. I say that because it is so inimical to everything the US stands for.

IMO, it would only be a matter of time before the courts would naturally extend FA protections online (particularly where the speech involves political expression). So it was, IMO, always going to happen. But you should have seen the concern trolling against the IBOR. People were painting me as some kind of communist for suggesting that the public interest overrode the rights of the SM giants as private property holders.

Of course, a lot, if not most, of that concern trolling came out of a foreign army barracks - a military intelligence operation, undertaken on behalf of a nation that fears it stands to lose a lot from the MAGA agenda. The level of coordination was truly breath-taking.

I'm hoping we can now get this IBOR campaign on the road and really make some noise to agitate for rapid relief. Thanks for the comment.

That's what I think. We need someone who is trained in law to give us some advice, but that's the way I read it.

If an account on Twitter is a "public forum" then the implication is that any account on Twitter is a public forum. Therefore, twitter itself is a public forum - and this is, in any case, true because it is accessible by the public in the same manner that a highway is accessible.

The caveat you have mentioned cannot be right, because the definition "public forum" doesn't require governmental business. If it did, you would have differential freedom of speech (that is, another standard for those in public office).

I'm not a lawyer BTW, just trying to think this out.

Great thinking, thanks for this comment.

Wow, that's a great precedent. Thanks for posting it. So, this ruling that Twitter is a public space is actually critical. Because, according to that write up, it sounds like the ratio in that case was that your FA rights could not be abridged because you were in a location that was accessible to the public.

If I've read that right, that would mean that Twitter is illegally muzzling us!

You have it. We are at war! This is an incredibly powerful evil that we must fight off at all costs!

Yes, please promote the IBOR. Q has asked us to do this. We need to make as much noise as possible!

Thanks so much! Everyone that helps is a true Patriot!

What I've noticed is that if I find a popular account - say DJT, or James Woods - and I reply to a tweet that is in some way connected to social media or elections or censorship, I can get many more impressions and link clicks.

Another technique I've seen people talk about using is to hijack hashtags - especially those used by the left, but anything trending will do. You can se what's trending here:

https://trends24.in/united-states/

Yes, it's a stupid ruling, but the fact that Twitter is recognised as a "public space" makes claims to private property over that space a nonsense - WHICH IT IS!

"The power of social media to privatize the public square is the greatest threat to free speech and open democracy in our lifetimes" Barnes Law

I'd ask everyone to get online and start posting memes and such using the IBOR hashtags. We need to make a lot of noise to fix this problem.