The rampant government censorship of conservative speech is under a glaring spotlight, thanks to one judge’s recent ruling. Liberal Democrats running the current administration have absolutely “coordinated with social media and targeted the revenue of conservative, libertarian and other sites.” Nina Jankowicz can take her defamation lawsuit against Fox News and stuff it. Wherever it gives her the most pleasure. Her “Disinformation Governance Board” was nothing but misinformation itself. George Orwell would have called her the “thought police” but 1984 was a long, long time ago. Big Brother had a sex change with the new millennium. Your little sister Alexa can provide helpful information or order a pizza, while tracking every aspect of your life.
The censorship is real
Thanks to a ruling by Judge Colm Connolly issued Monday, July 22, Americans can officially say that censorship against conservative speech is real. Not some sort of tinfoil-hat conspiracy.
Nina Jankowicz is really unhappy about some things he wrote into his ruling. She would love to censor them but can’t.
Respected legal scholar Jonathan Turley has been watching “the Mary Poppins of Disinformation” since she came on the scene with her censorship board, within the Department of Homeland Security.
The federal court has dismissed the defamation case of Nina Jankowicz. As some of us predicted, the criticism of Jankowicz was deemed opinion. https://t.co/mMsya7BUyG The court found that what the Disinformation Governance Board was doing was appropriately called censorship…
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 22, 2024
Fox News had a few things to say about her, which she didn’t like, so she tried to have them canceled. Specifically, Fox printed a story claiming she “intended to censor Americans’ speech.”
Based on all the reporting over her controversial Disinformation Board, plans for it were scrapped. “Jankowicz resigned in 2022. She then sued Fox News for defamation.” Professor Turley explains what was so great about Monday’s ruling dismissing her case.
“Chief Judge Colm Connolly didn’t just say it was legally unfounded — he demolished the claims of figures like Jankowicz that they are really not engaged in censorship.” That’s misinformation, the Judge declares.
Coordinated with social media
Bureaucrats working quietly behind the scenes began the anti-free speech movement but when Biden usurped office the censorship ramped up to a whole new level. Joe’s handlers “coordinated with social media and targeted the revenue of conservative, libertarian and other sites.” Including The GOP Times.
“These figures gleefully worked to silence others with the support of millions in public dollars for years. Yet, when exposed to criticism, they often portrayed themselves as victims with an obliging and supportive media.”
Judge Connolly wasn’t buying the senseless and unfounded argument that “the barring, blacklisting and throttling of opposing views” is perfectly fine and legal if you call it “content moderation.” No matter what you call it, attempting to block disinformation is censorship.
A federal court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit against Fox News by former “disinformation tsar” Nina Jankowicz @wiczipedia. The disgraced former Biden admin staffer later became a registered foreign agent for the “Centre for Information Resilience.” https://t.co/01PSSx6Ntj
— Andy Ngô 🏳️🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) July 23, 2024
When Fox called her out about it and Jankowicz lost her cushy gig, “she launched a campaign soliciting funds to sue those who called her a censor.” She didn’t even use her own money.
Jankowicz, Turley notes, “simply labeled criticism of her as ‘defamation‘ — just as she labeled opposing views ‘disinformation.‘” Any criticism of her work was a lie and she was absolutely not out to “censor” anyone. The judge didn’t buy it. “After holding that people are allowed to criticize Jankowicz as protected opinion,” he really cut loose.
“The Disinformation Governance Board was formed precisely to examine citizens’ speech and, in coordination with the private sector, identify ‘misinformation,‘ ‘disinformation,‘ and ‘malinformation.‘ … that objective is fairly characterized as a form of censorship.” Case dismissed.
