The Daily Psyop

Where Skepticism Meets Insight

News

News

Political Scientist Wins Injunction Against University of Oregon Officials Over Social Media Censorship

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

The US District Court for the District of Oregon has granted a preliminary injunction in the Gilley v Stabin case, involving Portland State University political scientist Bruce Gilley, and the University of Oregon (UO) Division of Equity and Inclusion.

We obtained a copy of the order for you here.

It was Tova Stabin, at that time, June 2022, UO’s communications manager – who is named as a defendant in Gilley’s First Amendment-based lawsuit filed after he was blocked on Twitter by Stabin.

Stabin’s decision to block Gilley and thus have his posts removed from the UO Equity account, came as he responded to her asking Twitter to “interrupt racism.” Gilley’s post read, “All men are created equal.”

The latest decision came after the motion for a preliminary injunction was first denied as moot (because UO Equity lifted the block one day after Gilley filed, and ceased activity on its Twitter account) – but then the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to the lower court.

The decision means that UO Equity can no longer block Gilley, or hide, mute, or delete his posts.

According to Just The News, Stabin retired from UO shortly after Gilley was censored, but returned this year as a consultant for the school, in order to organize “a couple of fighting antisemitism workshops.”

When the blocking incident originally happened, Gilley wanted to know which policy allowed UO to do what it did and filed a request for public records to reveal this. Stabin was then cited in the response to the request as telling a colleague Gilley was “obnoxious” – and not only that but was “bringing obnoxious people to the site.”

The 9th Circuit’s decision back in March noted that UO first said it had no formal policy on social media, but that when Gilley sued, it suddenly changed this position by revealing guidelines that gave it the right to remove any comments it considered racist, hateful, otherwise inappropriate or offensive.

And to make the “rules” as broad as possible – also comments that are “out of context, off-topic or not relevant to the topic at hand.” That would be one way of saying, “obnoxious.”

However the appellate court was not impressed, stating that the case was not moot because of the policy’s “lack of formality and relative novelty, how easily (it) can be reversed, and the lack of procedural safeguards to protect from arbitrary action.”

For that reason, the 9th Circuit found, “Gilley has standing to seek prospective relief for his as-applied challenge,” and now the district court granted an injunction.

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

The post Political Scientist Wins Injunction Against University of Oregon Officials Over Social Media Censorship appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Read More
News

Landmark Ruling Strikes Down Warrantless Device Searches of US Citizens Borders

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

The District Court for the Eastern District of New York has ruled that the US government must reverse course on its policy of warrantless searches of US (and foreign) nationals’ electronic devices as they enter the country.

We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here.

This is not the only court decision on this issue, while this particular outcome, requiring that border agents obtain court-issued orders before performing such searches, concerns the district that is the court’s seat – therefore also a major port of entry, JFK International Airport.

It was precisely at this airport that an event unfolded which set in motion a legal case. In 2022, US citizen Kurbonali Sultanov was coerced (he was told he “had no choice”) into surrendering his phone’s passport to border officers.

Sultanov later became a defendant in a criminal case but argued that evidence from the phone should not be admitted because the device was accessed in violation of the Fourth Amendment (which protects Americans against unreasonable and warrantless searches).

Of course, all these envisaged protections refer to US citizens, and even there prove to be sketchy in many instances. Foreign travelers (even though entering the country legally) are effectively left without any protections regarding their privacy.

Sultanov’s argument was supported in an amicus brief filed the following year by the Knight First Amendment Institute and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, who said that the First Amendment is violated as well when law enforcement gains access to phones without a warrant since it invalidates constitutional protections of speech, freedom of the press, religion, and association.

The New York Eastern District Court’s decision is by and large based precisely on that amicus brief. One of the arguments from it is that journalists entering the US are often forced to hand over their devices.

The court agreed that “letting border agents freely rifle through journalists’ work product and communications whenever they cross the border would pose an intolerable risk to press freedom,” said Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press attorney Grayson Clary in a press statement.

Meanwhile, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said they were reviewing this ruling – and would not comment on what the agency said are “pending criminal cases.”

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

The post Landmark Ruling Strikes Down Warrantless Device Searches of US Citizens Borders appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Read More
News

Zelensky Says Ukraine and the ‘Whole World’ Wants Russia at Peace Summit

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said Kyiv and the “whole world” want Russia to participate in a summit to discuss peace in Ukraine.

Zelensky has organized several international meetings that have been billed as “peace summits,” but Russia hasn’t been invited to attend. The most recent was hosted by Switzerland, and some countries were critical of the lack of Russian participation.

“The majority of the world today says that Russia must be represented at the second summit, otherwise we will not achieve meaningful results,” Zelensky told reporters on Tuesday. “Since the whole world wants them to be at the table, we cannot be against it.”

Zelensky first said in July that he wanted Russia to attend the next summit, which marked a significant shift in his position. He had previously ruled out negotiations with Russia unless it withdrew from all the territory it captured in Ukraine, which is a non-starter for Moscow.

Russia has said it’s open to peace talks with Ukraine, but Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Thursday that there are still no concrete plans for a summit. “First of all, so far, there is no summit with Russia’s participation being planned. From time to time, we hear such sporadic musings on Russia’s participation,” he said in a radio interview, according to TASS.

Peskov also cast doubt on Ukraine’s willingness to negotiate peace, saying it was “possible” to hold talks with Ukrainian officials but “impossible to trust them.”

Throughout the war, the only time a real peace deal was on the table was back in March and April of 2022. But the US and NATO discouraged Ukraine from signing an agreement and promised to support its fight against Russia.

Read More
News

The Smearing of Cori Bush for Being Truthful About the Gaza War

Soon after the Gaza war began 10 months ago, a prominent newspaper columnist denounced Congresswoman Cori Bush under a headline declaring that “anti-Israel comments make her unfit for reelection.” The piece appeared in the newspaper with the second-largest readership in Missouri, the Kansas City Star. Multimillion-dollar attacks on Bush followed.

Bush’s opponent, county prosecutor Wesley Bell, “is now the number-one recipient of AIPAC cash this election cycle,” according to Justice Democrats. “Almost two-thirds of all his donations came from the anti-Palestinian, far-right megadonor-funded lobby group.” The Intercept reports that “AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project, has gone on to spend a total of $7 million so far to oust Bush” in the Aug. 6 Democratic primary in her St. Louis area district.

“The $2.1 million in ads spent for her campaign is up against $12.2 million spent to attack her or support Bell,” The American Prospect points out. AIPAC “is trying to pull voters away from her without ever saying the words ‘Israel’ or ‘Palestine.’ Instead, their advertising against Bush centers around her record on infrastructure legislation, in a manner that lacks context.”

It’s easy to see why AIPAC and allied forces are so eager to defeat Bush. She courageously introduced a ceasefire resolution in the House nine days after the bloodshed began on Oct. 7, calling for “an immediate de-escalation and ceasefire in Israel and occupied Palestine.”

The Kansas City Star article, published shortly after Bush introduced the resolution, was written by former New York Times reporter Melinda Henneberger, now a member of the Star’s editorial board. “A military attack in response to the massacre of civilians by a group committed in writing to ‘carnage, displacement and terror’ for Jews is not my idea of ‘ethnic cleansing,’” she wrote in early November. “But it is Missouri Rep. Cori Bush’s, which is why she deserves to lose her congressional race next year.”

Bush supposedly became unfit to keep her seat in Congress because, after three weeks of methodical killing in Gaza, she tweeted: “We can’t be silent about Israel’s ethnic cleansing campaign. Babies, dead. Pregnant women, dead. Elderly, dead. Generations of families, dead. Millions of people in Gaza with nowhere to go being slaughtered. The U.S. must stop funding these atrocities against Palestinians.”

Henneberger’s response was hit-and-run. She wrote a hit piece. And then she ran.

Ever since late April, I’ve been asking Henneberger just one question, over and over. Every few weeks, I have sent another email directly to her. I also wrote to her care of an editor at the newspaper. And I even mailed a certified letter, which the post office delivered to her office in June.

No reply.

Henneberger’s column had flatly declared that Bush’s tweet was a “projectile spewing of antisemitic comments and disinformation” because it said that Israel was engaged in ethnic cleansing.

So, my question, which Henneberger has been refusing to answer for more than three months, is a logical one: “Do you contend that the Israeli government has not engaged in ethnic cleansing?”

If Henneberger were to answer no, the entire premise of her column smearing Bush would collapse.

If Henneberger were to answer yes, her reply would be untenable.

No wonder she has chosen not to answer at all.

What Israel has been doing in Gaza clearly qualifies as “ethnic cleansing” – which a UN Commission of Experts defined as “a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas.”

But denial about Israel’s massive and ongoing crimes against Palestinian people is pervasive – and often used to attack principled progressives in election campaigns. And so, two months ago, in the St. Louis area, 35 rabbis supporting Bell against Bush issued a statement that alleged the congresswoman “continually fanned the flames with the most outrageous smears of Israel, accusing the Jewish state of ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘genocide’ as it has fought to defeat the terrorists.”

The electoral forces against human rights for Palestinians have been armed with huge amounts of cash. AIPAC dumped $15 million into successfully defeating progressive New York Congressman Jamaal Bowman early this summer. While the spending amount set a record, the approach was far from unprecedented.

In 2022, AIPAC beat Michigan Congressman Andy Levin, who had expressed support for Palestinian rights. “I’m really Jewish,” Levin said in an interview days before losing the Democratic primary, “but AIPAC can’t stand the idea that I am the clearest, strongest Jewish voice in Congress standing for a simple proposition: that there is no way to have a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people unless we achieve the political and human rights of the Palestinian people.”

AIPAC excels at strategic lobbying on Capitol Hill, relentlessly prodding or threatening lawmakers and their staffs to stay on the right side of a Zionist hardline, always brandishing the proven capacity to launch fierce attacks – while conflating even understated criticism of Israel with antisemitism. The basic formulas are simple: Israel = Judaism. Opposition to Israel’s lethal violence = antisemitism.

Such formulaic manipulation has long been fundamental to claims that the Israeli government represents “the Jewish people” and criticisms of its actions are “antisemitic.”

That’s what the heroic Congresswoman Cori Bush is up against.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of many books including War Made Easy. His latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, was published in 2023 by The New Press.

Read More