Big Tech Censored Dozens of Doctors, More Than 800 Accounts for COVID-19 ‘Misinformation,’ Study Finds

Resource : https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2022-02-08/merck-and-ridgeback-announce-that-3-1-million-courses-of-molnupiravir-an-investigational-oral-antiviral-covid-19-medicine-have

Big Tech Censored Dozens of Doctors, More Than 800 Accounts for COVID-19 ‘Misinformation,’ Study Finds

Ailan Evans / @AilanHEvans / February 09, 2022

Twitter, Google, Google+, Gmail, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat are among the platforms arrayed on the screen of an Apple iPhone. Many of them have used their largely unregulated power to censor information they don’t approve of as “misinformation.” (Photo: Chesnot/Getty Images)

Major technology companies and social media platforms have removed, suppressed or flagged the accounts of more than 800 prominent individuals and organizations, including medical doctors, for COVID-19 “misinformation,” according to a new study from the Media Research Center.

The study focused on acts of censorship on major social media platforms and online services, including Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Ads, and TikTok.

dailycallerlogo

Instances of censorship included Facebook’s decision to flag the British Medical Journal with a “fact check” and “missing context” label, reducing the visibility of a post, for a study delving into data-integrity issues with a Pfizer vaccine clinical trial.

Facebook also deleted the page of the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter led by dozens of medical professionals, including Dr. Jay Battacharya, a Stanford epidemiologist, and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a former employee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which advocated for less restrictive measures to address the dangers of COVID-19.

“Big Tech set up a system where you can’t disagree with ‘the science’ even though that’s the foundation of the scientific method,” Dan Gainor, MRC vice president of Free Speech America, told the Daily Caller National Foundation. “If doctors and academic journals can’t debate publicly, then it’s not science at all. It’s ‘religion.’”

Big Tech also scrubbed podcast host Joe Rogan’s interviews with scientists Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Robert Malone, the latter of whom was instrumental in pioneering mRNA technology. Twitter banned Malone from its platform permanently in late December over the virologist’s tweets questioning the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccine.

“We tallied 32 different doctors who were censored, including mRNA vaccine innovator Dr. Robert Malone,” Gainor said. “Censoring views of credentialed experts doesn’t ensure confidence in vaccines. It undermines faith in government COVID-19 strategies.“

In addition to medical doctors, the study examined instances in which members of Congress were censored by tech platforms.

These included an incident last August in which YouTube suspended Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., for posting a video arguing that “cloth masks” are not effective against the coronavirus, a view later echoed by many prominent medical commentators. Twitter also flagged a tweet from Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., in which he wrote “studies show those with natural immunity from a prior infection are much less likely to contract and spread COVID than those who only have vaccine-induced immunity.”

The study also examined Big Tech censorship of prominent media personalities, such as Rogan, Tucker Carlson, and Dan Bongino.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Want to keep up with the 24/7 news cycle? Want to know the most important stories of the day for conservatives? Need news you can trust? Subscribe to The Daily Signal’s email newsletter. Learn more >>

FBI asks people to report family, friends showing ‘extremist’ behavior

On Sunday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) asked people to report their family members and friends who are showing “extremist” behavior in an effort to “help prevent homegrown violent extremism.”

Incidentally… They also published an Active Shooter Incidents showing that in 2020 there were 40 active shooters compared to 30 in 2019. All the other numbers were down on this report according to the FBI’s reference.

Active Shooter Comparisons

FBI’s Active Shooters Comparison Chart for 2020 and 2019

“Family members and peers are often best positioned to witness signs of mobilization to violence. Help prevent homegrown violent extremism,” the FBI said in a tweet. “Visit https://go.usa.gov/x6mjf to learn how to spot suspicious behaviors and report them to the #FBI. #NatSec.”

“Homegrown Violent Extremist Mobilization Indicators.”

The document outlines a list of 46 “observable behaviors that could help determine whether individuals or groups are preparing to engage in violent extremist activities.”

This link provided by the FBI in 2019 brings users to a document

The top three indicators on the list are:

• Preparing and disseminating a martyrdom video/statement, last will,

• seeking religious or political justification for a planned violent act,

• Attempting to mobilize others to violence, especially family members and peers.

Other indicators include:

• Encouraging or advocating violence toward individuals, military or government officials, law enforcement, or civilian targets

• Unusual purchase of military-style tactical equipment other than weapons (e.g., personal protective equipment, body armor),

• Dehumanizing people who are not in the identity group,

• Researching or discussing ways to evade law enforcement

• Lying to law enforcement officers/obstructing investigations.

The 2019 document largely focuses on Islamic extremism

More recently President Joe Biden’s administration has called white supremacy “the most lethal threat” to homeland security.

“According to the intelligence community, terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today,” Biden said during a speech marking the 100th anniversary of the 1921 race massacre in Tulsa, Oklahoma. “Not ISIS. Not Al Qaeda. White supremacists.”

New Announcement Last Month: National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism

Last month, the White House announced the new National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, an effort seeking to improve how domestic terrorism is defined, identified, and combated, primarily targeting those with racist or anti-government ideology.

The strategy says that experts and evidence have shown today’s domestic terrorists include those who espouse “racial or ethnic bigotry and hatred” as well as “anti-government or anti-authority sentiment.”

However, what I noticed is that anti-law enforcement ideologies such as those espoused by Antifa and Black Lives Matter were not mentioned.

“Racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (principally those who promote the superiority of the white race) and militia violent extremists are assessed as presenting the most persistent and lethal threats,” the strategy states.

“Domestic violent extremists pose an elevated threat in 2021 and in the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat we face comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race,” Garland told lawmakers.

Biden admin calls on Supreme Court to allow warrantless gun confiscation from homes

The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to uphold a warrantless gun confiscation ruling as the nation’s top court heard oral arguments Wednesday on Caniglia v Strom, a case that could have major consequences for the Fourth Amendment where policing, due process and mental health are concerned.

In its first amicus brief before the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice argued the actions taken by law enforcement to confiscate the petitioner’s firearms without a warrant were “reasonable.”

“The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness,” the DOJ’s brief stated. “For criminal investigations, this Court has generally incorporated the Warrant Clause into the Fourth Amendment’s overarching reasonableness requirement, but it has not generally done so for searches or seizures objectively premised on justifications other than the investigation of wrongdoing.”

“The ultimate question in this case is therefore not whether the respondent officers’ actions fit within some narrow warrant exception, but instead whether those actions were reasonable. And under all the circumstances here, they were,” the brief added.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Caniglia and his wife were arguing when he put an unloaded gun on their table and said, “shoot me now and get it over with.” Following the argument, Caniglia’s wife called the non-emergency police line, leading to a visit from law enforcement. The police convinced Mr. Caniglia to go to the hospital for psychological evaluation, despite disagreeing that his behavior was “abnormal” or “agitated.”

While Mr. Caniglia was on his way to the hospital, his wife told the police that he had two pistols in the home, at which point the officers searched the home without a warrant; however, Mrs. Caniglia couldn’t provide legal consent because the police lied, telling her that Mr. Caniglia had consented to the seizure of his firearms.

Read more below 👇

Biden admin calls on Supreme Court to allow warrantless gun confiscation from homes

Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Warrantless Gun Seizure

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 on Monday that Rhode Island police officers acted illegally when they seized a man’s guns without a warrant.

Edward Caniglia sued the city of Cranston, Rhode Island, after police officers located and took his guns while he was in the hospital for a mental health wellness check. He argued that the seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights, although two federal courts ruled against him. Those courts relied on a provision of the law that allows police to seize guns from drivers while on the road.

Supreme Court Overrules Lower Court – Police Officers Violated Fourth Amendment – Unlawful Search And Seizure Of Firearms

By Staff – May 18, 2021

The Supreme Court unanimously overruled the First Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Caniglia v. Strom, according to The Red State.

Caniglia v. Strom is a case in which law enforcement officers seized weapons from an individual without a warrant that had not been charged of any crime.

A domestic dispute between Caniglia and his wife called for a visit from the local police department.

The issue was brought to tranquility and Mr. Caniglia ‘voluntarily’ agreed to a psychiatric examination.

Caniglia was transported by police officers to the hospital.

Allegedly, at the request of Mrs. Caniglia, police entered Caniglia’s home.

Upon being asked into the residence, the police officers confiscated two firearms.

The Court ruled that police misled Mrs. Caniglia regarding their intentions and that she did not give consent for the officers to take the handguns.

Mr. Canglia filed a lawsuit against the local law enforcement officers with claims that they performed an unlawful search and seizure of his firearms.

The firearms were not in any way connected to a search for evidence of criminal activity.

The First Court ruled in favor of the police and did not find the search and seizure of weapons as an “unreasonable” search in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which the Supreme Court has now overruled.

From The Red State:

This doctrine has arisen over the course of several decades and began with the 1973 Supreme Court case of Cady v. Dombrowski. That case involved the search by police in Wisconsin of the trunk of a Chicago police officer’s personal vehicle based on a belief that the off-duty officer’s police weapon might be in the trunk of the car. The car was parked in a mechanic’s garage after it had been involved in an accident. Cady was drunk at the time of the accident, lapsed into a coma at the hospital, and could not answer questions after his car was towed. The Wisconsin police searched his vehicle because they believed Chicago PD policy required Cady to have it with him at all times.

But the search of the trunk uncovered evidence of a murder committed by Cady the day before the accident. The Supreme Court upheld the warrantless search of the trunk against a Fourth Amendment challenge because exceptions to the warrant requirement already exist for automobiles, and also because the purpose of searching Cady’s vehicle was non-investigatory. It was done to safeguard the community against the possibility that others might break into the car and discover the firearm.

In Caniglia, the First Circuit — for the first time — extended the “community caretaking function” to include the warrantless search of a residence, upholding the lower court judgment in favor of the police in the civil action brought by Caniglia for an unlawful search of his house.

Justice Thomas made short work of the outcome of the case, writing an opinion that, outside of the facts, covers only two pages.

Cady’s unmistakable distinction between vehicles and homes also places into proper context its reference to “community caretaking.” This quote comes from a portion of the opinion explaining that the “frequency with which . . . vehicle[s] can become disabled or involved in . . . accident[s] on public highways” often requires police to perform noncriminal “community caretaking functions,” such as providing aid to motorists. 413 U. S., at 441. But, this recognition that police officers perform many civic tasks in modern society was just that—a recognition that these tasks exist, and not an open-ended license to perform them anywhere.

The alternative to this outcome would have been potentially enormous because it would have set off a frenzy of “gun-grabbing” conduct by law enforcement officials in states and localities where there is overt hostility to the issue of private gun ownership. Only the creativity of the police officials would have limited the “community caretaker” justifications they would have employed to give them grounds to enter a private residence without a warrant in order to seize lawfully owned firearms located inside. It would have made private gun ownership subject to whatever articulation of “reasonableness” could be conjured up after the fact by the seizing authorities.