Politicalite UK | Britain's Most CENSORED News Outlet

Censorship

WE MUST FIGHT BACK: Donald Trump Jr. Slams Facebook Over Conservative Censorship

PRESIDENT Trump and his son, Donald Trump Jr. have both shown support for dozens of Conservative voices that were banned by Facebook this week, indicating that serious action against the ‘Tech Masters of the Universe’ could be coming.

The 45th President of the Free World Retweeted a tweet from Fox News’ host Maria Bartiromo.

“This will become an imp & bigger story going into #2020 ⁦@GOPLeader⁩ ⁦@realDonaldTrump⁩ ⁦@MorningsMaria⁩ ⁦@FoxBusiness⁩ #voteharvesting.” said Maria, one of the few journalists covering the astonishing crackdown on political free-speech.

Paul Joseph Watson was among those banned by Facebook and he thanked the President for highlighting the struggle facing Conservatives online.

“I appreciate President Trump tweeting about me.” said Watson.

“Hopefully this will speed up executive action on regulating Big Tech.”

The President’s son Donald Trump Jr, also weighed in.

He said: “The purposeful & calculated silencing of conservatives by @facebook & the rest of the Big Tech monopoly men should terrify everyone.”

“It appears they’re taking their censorship campaign to the next level.”

“Ask yourself, how long before they come to purge you? We must fight back.” added Trump Jr.

Watson slammed Facebook Thursday night after the social network doubled down on its mass-censorship of popular right-wing voices.

Dozens of U.S. and European online political voices stood up for Watson and demanded action on Facebook’s censorship that even saw the page of Politicalite UK get deleted for reporting on British MEP candidate, Tommy Robinson last week.

Breitbart Tech’s Allum Bhokari tweeted: “This is the key point. Facebook will ban you for sharing Infowars links now, unless you’re condemning them.”

It is openly punishing and rewarding users for their political opinions now.”

“This is a formula for censoring not just websites and personalities, but their supporters too”

More follows.

Comment Below.   CAN YOU HELP US REPORT MORE UNREPORTED NEWS?
SHARE!
0
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Please share

    May 4, 2019 at 07:35

    Here’s the ECHR rulings:

    Goodwin v The United Kingdom: ECHR

    An order for a journalist to reveal his source was a breach of his right of free expression: ‘The court recalls that freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and that the safeguards to be afforded to the press are of particular importance.
    Protection of journalistic sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom, as is reflected in the laws and the professional codes of conduct in a number of contracting states and is affirmed in several international instruments on journalistic freedoms. Without such protection, sources may be deterred from assisting the press in informing the public on matters of public interest. As a result the vital public watchdog role of the press may be undermined and the ability of the press to provide accurate and reliable information may be adversely affected. Having regard to the importance of the protection of journalistic sources for press freedom in a democratic society and the potentially chilling effect an order of source disclosure has on the exercise of that freedom, such a measure cannot be compatible with article 10 of the Convention unless it is justified by an overriding requirement in the public interest.’

    https://swarb.co.uk/goodwin-v-the-united-kingdom-echr-27-mar-1996/

    The Sunday Times v The United Kingdom (No 2): ECHR

    Any prior restraint on freedom of expression calls for the most careful scrutiny. ‘Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society subject to paragraph (2) of Article 10. It is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 is subject to a number of exceptions which, however, must be narrowly interpreted and the necessity for any restrictions must be convincingly established.’ and established by the party seeking to justify the interference. ‘Necessity’ means a pressing social need.

    https://swarb.co.uk/the-sunday-times-v-the-united-kingdom-no-2-echr-26-nov-1991/

    Observer and Guardian v The United Kingdom: ECHR

    The newspapers challenged orders preventing their publication of extracts of the ‘Spycatcher’ book.
    Held: The dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the court. This is especially so as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest. ‘[T]he dangers inherent in prior restraint are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court. This is especially so as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of all its value and interest.’

    https://swarb.co.uk/observer-and-guardian-v-the-united-kingdom-echr-26-nov-1991/

    Please mention about these rulings on your upcoming article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

MOST READ

To Top
HELP US REPORT UNREPORTED NEWS