|
|
Tag: Censorship
Statement On Anti-BDS Legislation & Universities from American Assoc of University Professors (AAUP)
Photo: A pro-Palestinian BDS protest in Paris, France August 13, 2015 AFP
Background on the BDS/Anti-BDS Movement
Today the AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure released the following statement calling on public universities to stop requiring speakers and others to pledge that they do not now, nor will they in the future, endorse a specific a specific political movement known as boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) with regard to Israel
According to the National Coalition Against Censorship, at least seventeen states have passed legislation imposing punitive measures against supporters of boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) with regard to Israel. As a result, some public universities in those states have begun to require that external speakers invited to campus and others who contract with these universities, such as external reviewers of tenure and promotion materials, sign a statement pledging that they do not now, nor will they in the future, endorse BDS.
The American Association of University Professors does not endorse BDS. We take no position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict nor on calls for divestment or economic sanctions. But we oppose all academic boycotts, including an academic boycott of Israel, on the grounds that such boycotts violate the principles of academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas for which our organization has stood for over one- hundred years. We believe that academic freedom ought not to be subordinated to political exigency; there will always be compelling political causes that will challenge the ideal of free and open scholarly exchange.
It is precisely for this reason that our opposition to BDS is matched as resolutely by our opposition to these pledges, which are nothing short of an attempt to limit freedom of speech and belief. Indeed, they conjure the specter of loyalty and disclaimer oaths, mainstays of McCarthyism. The right of individuals to engage in political boycotts, and to come together collectively to support a boycott, has a long and storied history in American civil protests. At colleges and universities especially, where reasoned disagreement and debate should be the order of the day, demands that faculty and students forswear support for a peaceful protest are repugnant.
At a time when there is widespread interest in making sure that speakers on all points of the political spectrum are able to make themselves heard on American campuses, the contradiction in seeking to ban advocates of this particular position is obvious and unacceptable. We therefore call on all institutions of higher education in the United States to challenge the required renunciation of BDS and uphold freedom of speech and belief for all members of the academic community.
Additionally, AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure sent a letter to the Israeli government in regard to the interrogation, subsequent expulsion, and apparent banning from Israel of Columbia Law School Professor Katherine Franke over her supporter of the “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” (BDS) movement in April. The letter urges the government of Israel to “reconsider your immigration officer’s decision and to revoke any further ban on Professor Franke’s entry for purposes of collaborative academic and scholarly work in Israel.”
The letter to the Israeli government can be downloaded here.
Publication Date:
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
Cornel West & Alan Dershowitz Debate BDS Movement’s Call for Boycott Against Israel
Sickies Making Films: New Documentary Explores Reasoning Behind Censorship & Movies
Movie poster courtesy Sickies Making Films, Facebook. Art by Robert A. Emmons Jr.
A LOVE LETTER TO THE MOVIES,
Sickies Making Films looks at our urge to censor films and asks why? We find reasons both absurd and surprisingly understandable. Using the Maryland Board of Censors (1916-1981) as a lens, as well as archival materials, classic film segments, and interviews with filmmakers and exhibitors who were subjected to censorship, this documentary examines the recurring problem of censorship in America.
Running time: 84:30
Visit Facebook for the latest updates:
https://www.facebook.com/sickiesmakingfilms/
Also:
http://www.sickiesmakingfilms.com/
Behind the Film:
Joe Tropea | director, producer, writer
Joe Tropea earned a Masters in Historical Studies with a concentration in Public History at the University of Maryland Baltimore County. He currently works at the Maryland Historical Society where he is the Curator of Films and Photographs and a co-founder of the Preserve the Baltimore Uprising Archive Project. In 2013 he co-directed the award winning documentary Hit & Stay: a history of faith and resistance.
Skizz Cyzyk | director of photography, producer
Skizz Cyzyk has been making films since 1983 and has worked for numerous film festivals since 1997. His filmography includes documentary features Icepick To The Moon, Hit & Stay and Freaks In Love; documentary shorts David Fair Is The King, Alfred Jarry & ‘Pataphysics and Little Castles; music videos for Young Fresh Fellows and Beach House; and many more.
Robert A. Emmons Jr. | editor, producer writer
Robert A. Emmons Jr. is the Associate Director of the Digital Studies Center and an Assistant Teaching Professor in the Fine Arts Department at Rutgers University-Camden. His 2014 film, Diagram for Delinquents, is about Fredric Wertham and the comic book panic of the 1940’s and ‘50s. It has played at various comic book conventions including Wizard World Chicago and the San Diego Comic Con. His previous films include the award winning Goodwill: The Flight of Emilio Carranza (2007), and De Luxe: The Tale of Blue Comet (2010).
Jennifer A. Ferretti | producer
Jennifer A. Ferretti has a BFA in Photography from Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA) and a MSLIS from Pratt Institute. Her career has been focused on research methodologies of artists, managing digital collections, and born-digital archiving. In addition to her contributions to films, including producing Hit & Stay(2014), she specializes in born-digital media preservation.
Jeff Krulik | archival research, producer
Jeff Krulik is a director of independent films and a former Discovery Channel producer. Krulik’s work frequently explores the fringes of popular culture from an enthusiastic and appreciative point of view. He has been making documentaries since 1986 and knows the National Archives like the back of his hand. His film and video work includes the cult phenomenon “Heavy Metal Parking Lot,” Led Zeppelin Played Here, “Hitler’s Hat,” and “Earnest Borgnine on the Bus.”
‘Too controversial’: Polk State College rejects professor’s anti-Trump artwork
Detail from “Death of Innocence” by Serhat Tanyolacar
“Tanyolacar submitted a piece titled “Death of Innocence,” which depicts several poets and writers juxtaposed with a number of pictures of President Donald Trump and other political figures engaging in sexual activity.”
LAKELAND, Fla., Feb. 20, 2018 — Free expression on campus isn’t childproofed — except at Polk State College, where part-time faculty member Serhat Tanyolacar’s artwork was rejected from a faculty art exhibition for being “too controversial.”
In early January, Polk State encouraged all faculty members in its arts program, including Tanyolacar, to submit artwork to a faculty exhibition scheduled to begin on Feb. 12. Tanyolacar submitted a piece titled “Death of Innocence,” which depicts several poets and writers juxtaposed with a number of pictures of President Donald Trump and other political figures engaging in sexual activity. Tanyolacar said the art is intended to highlight “moral corruption and moral dichotomy” and provoke debate.
In response to his submission, Polk State Program Coordinator Nancy Lozell informed Tanyolacar on Feb. 6 that his artwork would not be displayed. “After review by the gallery committee and the gallery administrator it was agreed upon that your piece Death of Innocence should not be displayed,” Lozell wrote, because the college “offers classes and volunteer opportunities to our collegiate charter high schools and other high schools in Polk county and we feel that that particular piece would be too controversial to display at this time.”
Serhat Tanyolacar
Death of Innocence (2017)
Suite of four relief engraving prints (unique edition)
96×48 inches
———————
This is a color version of the work (not the version to appear in the exhibit) which shows in better detail the controversial content. This is courtesy Serhat Tanyolacar’s official artist’s Facebook page.
FIRE and the National Coalition Against Censorship wrote to Polk State President Angela Garcia Falconetti on Feb. 14, asking the college to reassess Tanyolacar’s submitted artwork in a viewpoint-neutral manner.
“Members of the Polk State campus are not children, and they should not be treated as such,” said FIRE Senior Program Officer Sarah McLaughlin. “By sanitizing its campus to shield high school students from ‘controversial’ material in a faculty art exhibition, Polk State harms members of the college community by needlessly childproofing their campus, and high school students by underestimating their ability to cope with contentious or provocative artwork.”
In a Feb. 16 meeting, Tanyolacar discussed “Death of Innocence” with Falconetti, Interim Vice President of Academic Affairs Donald Painter, Jr., and Professor of Art Holly Scoggins. The administrators offered shifting justifications for the rejection of the piece, but again made clear that its “controversial” nature played a part in the decision. They reaffirmed that the faculty art exhibition — which opened on Feb. 12 — would not display “Death of Innocence.”
“For ‘Death of Innocence,’ my gallery display strategy is to engage dialogues with both the audience who appreciate the controversial imagery and the audience who may be offended by it,” Tanyolacar said. “No artwork should be barred from being exposed to the general audience in any academic institution. As educators and artists we must accept that our students cannot be protected or disconnected from the ideological controversies by the institutionalized moral authority. In fact, controversial artworks are essential to the intellectual growth of our students, and displaying them should be encouraged by both the administration and the faculty.”
This is not Tanyolacar’s first campus art controversy. As a visiting assistant professor at the University of Iowa in 2014, Tanyolacar attempted to spark a debate about racial issues in the United States by placing a piece of public art consisting of newspaper clippings about racial violence printed on a Ku Klux Klan-style robe and hood in an open, outdoor area of campus and engaging with viewers about it. In response to student complaints, UI officials required Tanyolacar to remove the artwork, prompting FIRE and NCAC to call on the university to restate its commitment to freedom of expression.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending liberty, freedom of speech, due process, academic freedom, legal equality, and freedom of conscience on America’s college campuses.
The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), founded in 1974, is an alliance of 56 national nonprofit organizations, including literary, artistic, religious, educational, professional, labor, and civil liberties groups dedicated to promoting the right to free speech. More information on its nationwide work combating censorship can be found at ncac.org.
Christopher Hitchens on Free Speech: To whom are you going to award the job of being the censor?
Excerpted from University of Toronto debate “Freedom of Speech includes the Freedom to Hate” held November 2006.
“To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker? Or determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the job of being the censor?”
FIRE names America’s 10 worst colleges for free speech: 2018
 |
|
PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 12, 2018 — Each year, colleges across the country find dubious ways to silence student and faculty expression. In the last year, administrators became embroiled in litigation for telling a student he couldn’t hand out Spanish-language copies of the U.S. Constitution outside a free speech zone, continued a years-long effort to ban a group from campus due to its political viewpoint, and even investigated a professor for a satirical tweet — eventually driving him to resign.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has identified America’s 10 worst colleges for free speech, published today with detailed descriptions on FIRE’s website.
This year’s list includes the following institutions, in no particular order:
The institutions on FIRE’s annual list of worst colleges include one university that threatened the funding and editorial process of its independent student newspaper, another that erected fences around campus to keep peaceful student demonstrators out of sight of donors, and yet another that put a student through a months-long investigation and a four-hour hearing for a joke. (That student is still waiting to learn his fate!)
“College administrators, and sometimes even students, are going to greater and greater lengths to justify muzzling expression on campus,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley. “This type of censorship makes for a sterile environment where lively debate and discussion can’t thrive. The public deserves to know which colleges will defend free expression — and which ones will go to seemingly any length to silence it.”
For the first time, FIRE also awarded a Lifetime Censorship Award to one university that threatens the free speech rights of its students and faculty so often that it deserves individual infamy: DePaul University.
DePaul earned the 2018 Lifetime Censorship Award in recognition of its decade-long rap sheet of suppressing speech at every turn. From denying recognition to a student organization criticizing marijuana laws, to forcing the DePaul Socialists, Young Americans for Freedom, and College Republicans to pay for security in order to host speakers at their meetings and events, to forbidding a group from using the slogan “Gay Lives Matter,” DePaul has staked out a leadership position in stifling campus expression.
FIRE’s 2018 list includes both public and private institutions. Public colleges and universities are bound by the First Amendment. Private colleges on this list are not required by the Constitution to respect student and faculty speech rights, but explicitly promise to do so.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending liberty, freedom of speech, due process, academic freedom, legal equality, and freedom of conscience on America’s college campuses.
|
Films, newspapers, magazines and intranets and other media spread decadent ideologies, cultural poisoning
Photo courtesy KCNA.
North Korea’s Rodong Sinmun Calls for Foiling Ideological and Cultural Poisoning by Imperialism
Date: 20/01/2018 | Source: KCNA.kp (En) | Read original version at source
Pyongyang, January 20 (KCNA) — For all the nations aspiring to independence and opposing imperialism to combat the poisoning of decadent ideologies and culture of every description precisely means a fierce struggle to defend their sovereignty and dignity, says Rodong Sinmun in an article Saturday.
The article goes on:
The imperialists regard the reactionary ideological and cultural poisoning as the most effective way for attaining their aggression and predatory aims with ease.
The degenerate reactionary ideology and the American outlook on value, which were employed as a guide to aggression, play the main role in aggression at present.
The imperialists consider the rising generation as the main target of their corrupt ideological and cultural poisoning.
Through films, newspapers, magazines and intranets and other media which the young people enjoy very much, the imperialists make them corrupt and degenerate and spread illusions about imperialism.
Those young people infected with luxury and enjoyment are reduced to renegades of their countries and stooges of imperialism unwittingly.
North Korean Defector: Return DPRK to State Sponsored Terrorism List
Some countries witnessed regime changes and government falls and the young people took the lead in causing such abnormal situations. That is because they were infected with the imperialist ideological and cultural poisoning.
The struggle in the ideological and cultural field is a war without gunfire. And a wrong struggle results in the worse consequences than the defeat in war.
The bourgeois ideological and cultural poisoning is more dangerous than a formidable enemy coming in attack with guns.
Any hesitation and concession to the ideological confrontation would give way to the bourgeois ideological and cultural poisoning and then it would make mess of the destiny of a nation and country.
The Amazing Kims: Mythology and the Cult of Personality in North Korea
FIRE files lawsuit on behalf of Illinois student detained by police for ‘Shut Down Capitalism’ flyers
Photo: Student Ivette Salazar was detained by campus police for passing out flyers critical of capitalism.
- A campus police officer told student Ivette Salazar she has freedom of speech only if Joliet Junior College approves it.
CHICAGO, Jan. 11, 2018 — Joliet Junior College student Ivette Salazar only wanted to do what Americans do every day: exercise her First Amendment right to respond to an opposing viewpoint. For that, campus police detained her, confiscated her political flyers, and told her she has freedom of speech only if JJC gives its approval.
That’s not how the First Amendment works, and that’s why Salazar filed a lawsuit today against JJC. The lawsuit is the latest for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s Million Voices Campaign, which aims to free the voices of one million students by striking down unconstitutional speech codes nationwide.
On Nov. 28, after seeing members of a conservative student group distributing anti-socialism materials on campus, Salazar decided to provide an alternate viewpoint by distributing flyers from the Party for Socialism and Liberation that read “Shut Down Capitalism.” After being reported by campus staff, she was detained by JJC police for approximately 40 minutes, interrogated at the campus police station, and told she could not distribute her flyers because of the “political climate of the country.”
When Salazar asked the officers detaining her about her free speech rights, she said one JJC police officer told her, “If you want to go ahead and post your flyers and burn your crosses, you have to get it approved” by the school. Her flyers were confiscated to ensure that she did not distribute them on campus.
“Debating the merits of economic and governmental systems is core political speech,” said FIRE Director of Litigation Marieke Tuthill Beck-Coon. “Campus police got it backward: The current ‘political climate’ is a reason for more speech, not censorship. If tense political times justified restricting political speech, the First Amendment would be pointless.”
FIRE wrote to JJC President Judy Mitchell on Dec. 4 to demand that the college comply with its legal obligations as a public institution bound by the First Amendment. FIRE did not receive a response to its letter.
“I should be able to express my political beliefs on campus without being detained,” said Salazar. “JCC didn’t just threaten my freedom of speech, but the freedom of speech of every student on that campus. If we can’t have political discussions on a college campus, then where can we have them?”
As part of her lawsuit, Salazar challenges the constitutionality of JJC’s “Free Speech Area” policy. The policy restricts expressive activity to one small, indoor area of campus, requires students to request use of the area five business days in advance, requires students to disclose the purpose of their speech, allows for only two people to use the area at a time, and requires students to remain behind a table. If a student wants to distribute literature while in the area, he or she also has to get the materials approved by administrators ahead of time.
Salazar’s lawsuit also alleges that JJC violated her Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully detaining her.
Today’s lawsuit was filed in partnership with FIRE Legal Network member and former president of the First Amendment Lawyers Association Wayne Giampietro of Poltrock & Giampietro in Chicago. Giampietro serves as co-counsel with FIRE in the case.
“A public college should be teaching its students the existence and value of the freedoms protected by our federal and state constitutions, not violating those freedoms,” said Giampietro. “The First Amendment protects our most cherished right to speak freely on political matters. It is deplorable that public school employees, paid with our tax money, would detain, interrogate, and seize political materials from a student who is attempting to exercise that right.”
If you are a student who has been censored on campus, FIRE and its Legal Network partners stand ready to protect your First Amendment rights in court. Students interested in submitting their case to FIRE’s Million Voices Campaign may do so through FIRE’s online case submission form. Attorneys interested in joining FIRE’s Legal Network should apply on FIRE’s website.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending liberty, freedom of speech, due process, academic freedom, legal equality, and freedom of conscience on America’s college campuses.
Milo Yiannopoulos, Roger Stone Announce Anti-Trust Lawsuit Against Twitter
Award-winning journalist and New York Times bestselling author MILO is joining longtime Donald Trump advisor and Republican strategist Roger Stone in an anti-trust lawsuit against social media giant Twitter.
In July 2016 MILO made headlines when Twitter permanently suspended his account following a negative review he wrote of the newly released, all-female Ghostbusters movie.
Stone had his account permanently suspended in late 2017 after posting several tweets with expletives. Both contend they did not violate Twitter’s terms of service and were targeted instead for arbitrary reasons.
In a statement about MILO joining the lawsuit, Roger Stone said:
We continue to explore a broad lawsuit challenging Twitter’s censorship and the hypocrisy of their rules for online conduct which seem to be disproportionately levied against conservative voices in an obvious attempt to silence us. Verified tweeters call for my murder online every day, but Twitter doesn’t ban them.
We believe it is time to expose their manipulation of algorithms, ‘shadowbanning’ and other online techniques used to limit our reach. It’s time for Twitter to be regulated like a public utility or perish. I am heartened that my friend Milo is prepared to join our legal action along with other conservatives who have been gagged by the Twitter censors.
In a January 11 statement about the anti-trust case, MILO said:
I am Patient Zero of the Twitter war against conservatives and libertarians. The company declared war on free speech when it banned me in July 2016. At the time, I appreciated the free press. But I have come to realize that Twitter’s recklessness and bias toward conservatives and free thinkers represents a threat to free speech and democracy, such is Twitter’s monopolistic grip on journalistic discourse.
Footage released this week by investigative journalists at Project Veritas reveal a defiantly biased company whose hateful and divisive political attitudes are robbing libertarians and conservative journalists and media personalities of the right to freely express their opinions in the press.
The biggest tech debate of the next decade is whether technology companies, in particular social networks, should be regulated as public utilities. It is becoming increasingly clear, given their rampant abuses, that they should. And Twitter is the worst offender of them all.
Twitter Shadow Banning Undercover Video Released by Project Veritas
MILO discussed details of the case in an episode of his new show, THE MILO SHOW, located at dangerous.com, which first aired live on January 11, 2018.
Twitter Shadow Banning Undercover Video Released by Project Veritas
Steven Pierre, Twitter engineer explains “shadow banning,” says “it’s going to ban a way of talking”
Former Twitter software engineer Abhinav Vadrevu on shadow banning: “they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it”
Former Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Norai explains banning process: “if it was a pro-Trump thing and I’m anti-Trump… I banned his whole account… it’s at your discretion”
When asked if banning process was an unwritten rule, Norai adds “Very. A lot of unwritten rules… It was never written it was more said”
Olinda Hassan, Policy Manager for Twitter Trust and Safety explains, “we’re trying to ‘down rank’… shitty people to not show up,” “we’re working [that] on right now”
“Shadow banning” to be used to stealthily target political views- former Twitter engineer says, “that’s a thing”
Censorship of certain political viewpoints to be automated via “machine learning” according to Twitter software engineer
Parnay Singh, Twitter Direct Messaging Engineer, on machine learning algorithms, “you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck…” “the majority of it are for Republicans”
————–
(San Francisco) In the latest undercover Project Veritas video investigation, current and former Twitter employees are on camera explaining steps the social media giant is taking to censor political content that they don’t like.
This video release follows the first undercover Twitter exposé Project Veritas released on January 10th which showed Twitter Senior Network Security Engineer Clay Haynes saying that Twitter is “more than happy to help the Department of Justice with their little [President Donald Trump] investigation.” Twitter responded to the video with a statementshortly after that release, stating “the individual depicted in this video was speaking in a personal capacity and does not represent of speak for Twitter.” The video released by Project Veritas today features eight employees, and a Project Veritas spokesman said there are more videos featuring additional employees coming.
On January 3rd 2018 at a San Francisco restaurant, Abhinov Vadrevu, a former Twitter Software Engineer explains a strategy, called “shadow banning,” that to his knowledge, Twitter has employed:
“One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting and no one sees their content. So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it.”
Twitter is in the process of automating censorship and banning, says Twitter Software Engineer Steven Pierre on December 8th of 2017:
“Every single conversation is going to be rated by a machine and the machine is going to say whether or not it’s a positive thing or a negative thing. And whether it’s positive or negative doesn’t (inaudible), it’s more like if somebody’s being aggressive or not. Right? Somebody’s just cursing at somebody, whatever, whatever. They may have point, but it will just vanish… It’s not going to ban the mindset, it’s going to ban, like, a way of talking.”
Olinda Hassan, a Policy Manager for Twitter’s Trust and Safety team explains on December 15th, 2017 at a Twitter holiday party that the development of a system of “down ranking” “shitty people” is in the works:
“Yeah. That’s something we’re working on. It’s something we’re working on. We’re trying to get the shitty people to not show up. It’s a product thing we’re working on right now.”
Former Twitter Engineer Conrado Miranda confirms on December 1st, 2017 that tools are already in place to censor pro-Trump or conservative content on the platform. When asked whether or not these capabilities exist, Miranda says, “that’s a thing.”
In a conversation with former Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Norai on May 16th, 2017, we learned that in the past Twitter would manually ban or censor Pro-Trump or conservative content. When asked about the process of banning accounts, Norai said, “On stuff like that it was more discretion on your view point, I guess how you felt about a particular matter…”
When asked to clarify if that process was automated Norai confirmed that it was not:
“Yeah, if they said this is: ‘Pro-Trump’ I don’t want it because it offends me, this, that. And I say I banned this whole thing, and it goes over here and they are like, ‘Oh you know what? I don’t like it too. You know what? Mo’s right, let’s go, let’s carry on, what’s next?’”
Norai also revealed that more left-leaning content would go through their selection process with less political scrutiny, “It would come through checked and then I would be like ‘Oh you know what? This is okay. Let it go.’”
Norai explains that this selection process wasn’t exactly Twitter policy, but rather they were following unwritten rules from the top:
“A lot of unwritten rules, and being that we’re in San Francisco, we’re in California, very liberal, a very blue state. You had to be… I mean as a company you can’t really say it because it would make you look bad, but behind closed doors are lots of rules.”
“There was, I would say… Twitter was probably about 90% Anti-Trump, maybe 99% Anti-Trump.”
At a San Francisco bar on January 5th, Pranay Singh details how the shadow-banning algorithms targeting right-leaning are engineered:
“Yeah you look for Trump, or America, and you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck. Then you look and parse all the messages, all the pictures, and then you look for stuff that matches that stuff.”
When asked if the majority of the algorithms are targeted against conservative or liberal users of Twitter, Singh said, “I would say majority of it are for Republicans.”
Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe believes the power over speech Silicon Valley tech giants has is unprecedented and dangerous:
“What kind of world do we live in where computer engineers are the gatekeepers of the ‘way people talk?’ This investigation brings forth information of profound public importance that educates people about how free they really are to express their views online.”
Project Veritas plans to release more undercover video from within Twitter in the coming days.
Mr. O’Keefe has just completed a book about this series entitled “AMERICAN PRAVDA: My fight for Truth in the Era of Fake News.” The book will be released by St. Martin’s Press on January 16, 2018.