Conspiracy To Suppress

PUBLISHED: 7:25 PM 5 Sep 2018

Social Media Giants Charged With Conservative Suppression

Freedom Watch accused the biggest platforms of conspiring to ‘regulate free speech’ by censoring conservative views, restricting trade, and discriminating against conservatives.

Alex Jones of InfoWars was one of those targeted by YouTube. They deleted his channel which had more than 2 million subscribers.

A Billion dollar class action suit filed Wednesday benefits “all politically conservative organizations, entities and/or individuals” creating or distributing content that was illegally suppressed or censored by Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, or Apple. “Defendants’ goal is to use their position of influence and great market power – as set forth below – to re-craft the nation into their leftist design.”

“It has been revealed that Defendants, each and every one of them, have engaged in a conspiracy to intentionally and willfully suppress politically conservative content.”

In the 1980’s, Freedom Watch founder Larry Klayman was a prosecutor for the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department and “an integral member” of the trial team “that broke up the AT&T monopoly during the Reagan administration.” He’s getting ready to do it again.

The suit seeks damages on behalf of all those similarly situated so “the amount in controversy exceeds the value of $1,000,000,000.”

Judicial Watch’s complaint accuses the media giants of “engaging in illegal suppression and censorship of politically conservative content.” All the Defendants acted in very similar ways, described as “conscious parallelism” that indicates such a high degree of complicity that it rises to the level of conspiracy.

“This conspiracy has resulted in severe financial loss, as well as unconstitutional suppression of speech and other content,” the suit claims. The “mainstream media” was in on the fix as well.

“Acting in concert with traditional medial outlets including… CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and Washington Post – all of whom are owned and/or managed by persons with a leftist political ideology, Defendants have intentionally and willfully suppressed politically conservative content in order to take down President Donald Trump and his administration with the intent and purpose to have installed a leftist government in the nation’s capital and the 50 states.”

“Indeed,” the complaint continues, “many executives of Defendants and at CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post, which outlets are not being suppressed, are intricately connected with former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and former President Bill Clinton and still serve their interests, as well as those of other leftist politicians, through the media.”

Google subsidiary YouTube is supposed to be “a public forum for video-based speech in this district and all around the world, allowing users to upload videos viewable by anyone in the world, in order to share ideas, viewpoints, and ideologies.”

Freedom Watch points out that “more video content has been uploaded to Google/YouTube by public users than has been created by the major U.S. television networks in 30 years.”

The claim alleges that, “YouTube has demonetized videos from conservatives while leaving similar videos up for members of the Left.”

For example, they write, “Prager University has watched innocuous videos titled ‘Why America Must Lead,’ ‘The Ten Commandments: Do Not Murder,’ and ‘Why Did America Fight the Korean War’ demonetized (i.e. barred from accepting advertisements) at YouTube’s hands.”

YouTube has also targeted conservative Alex Jones of InfoWars, “deleting his channel, which had ‘more than 2 million subscribers and many years’ worth of video content.”

Last week the public was shocked to learn that corporate megalith Google, the parent company of YouTube, was heavily biasing search results. The Freedom Watch complaint quotes Paula Bolyard of PJ media. “an incredible 96% of Google search results for ‘Trump’ news came from liberal media outlets, using the widely accepted Sharyl Attkisson media bias chart.”

Facebook is heavily involved in the collusion also. The complaint points out how they shifted their algorithm “to downgrade supposedly ‘partisan’ news, which has the effect of undercutting newer sites that are perceived as more partisan, while leaving brand names with greater public knowledge relatively unscathed.”

They easily have the power to do it. Sarah Miller, the Deputy Director of the Open Markets Institute, has plainly stated that Facebook is a “corporate monopoly,” Freedom Watch writes.

“There is no other social media company today that has the enormous global reach combined with the personal intimacy and immediate engagement of Facebook.” Even CEO Mark Zuckerberg couldn’t name a single competitor during a recent congressional hearing.

They then specify some disturbing allegations raised by Gizmodo. Facebook’s “news curators” were “instructed to artificially ‘inject’ selected stories into the trending news module, even if they weren’t popular enough to warrant inclusion – or in some cases weren’t trending at all.”

A few disgruntled censors talked to Gizmodo reporters. One was “so troubled by the omissions that they kept a running log of them at the time… Among the deep-sixed or suppressed topics on the list: former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was accused by Republicans of inappropriately scrutinizing conservative groups; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker; popular conservative news aggregator the Drudge Report; Chris Kyle, the former Navy SEAL who was murdered in 2013; and former Fox News contributor Steven Crowder.”

“Every once in a while a Red State or conservative news source would have a story. But we would have to go and find the same story from a more neutral outlet that wasn’t as biased.”

The class action also notes Twitter’s censorship efforts as spelled out in a National Review article. “James O’Keefe recently exposed the practice of ‘shadowbanning,’ in which Twitter hides particular content or mutes particular hashtags for political purposes.”

As Newsweek reports, “Congress enacted the Sherman Act in 1890 in an effort to prevent concentrations of power from interfering with economic competition and trade.”

Section one says it’s illegal “for a contract, combination of entities or conspiracy to restrict trade or commerce.” Under Section two, the Sherman Act prevents “monopolizing trade or commerce.”

If found guilty, a corporation faces a fine of up to $100,000,000 and an individual person can be fined up to $1,000,000 or up to 10 years in prison under both sections one and two.