Spring was in the air and snow melting in April, but Big Tech platforms — especially Meta’s — continued to freeze free speech. Utilizing its unique CensorTrack.org database, which has logged 6,745 cases as of publication, MRC Free Speech America tracked censorship across multiple platforms in April. Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram seemed particularly determined to suppress free speech, targeting content that included an anti-communist meme and criticism of President Joe Biden’s border crisis. Google-owned YouTube, meanwhile, continued its election interference by censoring a high-profile Independent presidential candidate.  And while Meta’s censorship only made up 9 out of a total of 28 cases in April, the Zuckerberg-led platforms’ speech suppression packed more of a punch.  Below are the worst cases of censorship from April. Humorless Meta targets memes. Both Facebook and Instagram censored satirical memes this past month. Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), a “pro-liberty organization on America's college campuses,” posted a meme on Facebook of horses standing under an immense table and chairs in a field with the caption, “This farm owner was denied a council permit to build a horse shelter. Fortunately, you don't need a permit to build a table and chairs.” YAL commented, “What a nice table.” Facebook slapped a fact-check label on the post calling it “partly false” and linked to articles from Check Your Fact and Lead Stories. Reportedly, the German farmer wasn’t denied a permit but did build the table shelter to avoid regulations.  Instagram, meanwhile, put a sensitive content filter on an Atlas Society post of a meme showing Care Bears with the caption, “What communists think they do.” The next image was of a firing squad with text saying, “What they actually do.” Instagram asserted the meme “may contain graphic or violent content," and required users to click through in order to view the meme. Facebook has found that users fail to click through similar interstitials 95 percent of the time. Instagram attempts to restrict followers of an account critical of LGBTQ ideology. On April 17, 2023, users started sharingscreenshots of an Instagram notice that popped up when users tried to follow Libs of TikTok. “Are you sure you want to follow libsoftiktokofficial? This account has repeatedly posted false information that was reviewed by independent fact-checkers or went against our Community Guidelines,” the notice read. The notice disappeared by April 18, and no clarification was offered on the platform’s reasoning. Google-owned YouTube censors one of President Joe Biden’s opponents. YouTube imposed a fact-checking label on a video of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s appearance on Chris Cuomo's NewsNation show. Kennedy aimed to “clarify [his] position on January 6” during the appearance. YouTube slapped a context label on the video with a link to the Wikipedia page for the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The label asserted, “On Jan. 6, 2021, the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., was attacked by a mob of supporters of then-U.S. president Donald Trump, two months after his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.” Facebook disabled the account of a show host for criticizing radical Islamic terrorists. Daniel Greenfield, a journalism fellow for FrontPage Magazine’s David Horowitz Freedom Center, declared on April 15 that Facebook had disabled FrontPage Editor Jamie Glazov’s account as of April 4 for discussing Islamic terrorism. Facebook reportedly objected to a “Glazov Gang” interview headlined  “Oct. 7 Coming to the USA?” The platform alleged that the interview, which discussed terrorists crossing into America through the open southern border, violated its “community standards” and threatened “the security of people on Facebook,” according to Greenfield. Glazov’s account appears to have been restored by Facebook. Instagram censors critique of IRS for no clear reason. The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) posted an image of a Hanna Cox tweet on its Instagram page, stating, “There are 724 billionaires in the US and 87,000 new IRS agents. They're not going after the rich, cupcakes. They're coming for you.” Instagram then imposed a “Missing Context” label on FEE’s post, asserting, “The same information was reviewed by independent fact-checkers in another post.” Clicking on the warning, though, only brought up the message, “This information is not available.”

During their Wednesday newscast, ABC’s Good Morning America and CBS Mornings boasted that TikTok was talking the American government to court because the company refused to comply with American law. The networks boosted TikTok’s claims in their legal filing that the law violated the First Amendment and their suggestion that members of Congress were hypocrites for having TikTok accounts, but what they failed to disclose to their audiences was the fact that those same filings proved that the Chinese Communist Party controlled TikTok. In their filing, TikTok admits: “Third, the Chinese government has made clear that it would not permit a divestment of the recommendation engine that is a key to the success of TikTok in the United States … By doing so, the Chinese government clearly signaled that it would assert its export control powers with respect to any attempt to sever TikTok’s operations from ByteDance, and that any severance would leave TikTok without access to the recommendation engine that has created a unique style and community that cannot be replicated on any other platform today.” ABC senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott trumpeted that “TikTok is taking on the federal government, setting up a showdown in court over free speech and national security.” Ignoring the fact the filing admitted they were taking orders from the Chinese government, Scott framed their lawsuit as an act of brave defiance. “TikTok's parent company is making it clear they cannot and will not be selling the platform,” she proclaimed. Scott concluded her report by touting: “The bottom line, TikTok will remain available in the United States as this plays out in the courts.”     Over on CBS, correspondent Scott MacFarlane parroted TikTok’s talking points that “it's being asked to do the impossible -- to be divested or sold to an approved buyer by their China-based owner ByteDance within months or face a ban in the United States.” “They say that's a violation of the First Amendment and that they're being singled out because of their ties to China,” he added. While ignoring the part of TikTok’s filing that admitted that they were controlled by the Chinese Government, MacFarlane quoted another: In their new legal petition, they say, “There's no question the act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19th, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere.” “The company denies those allegations and has asked a court to delay or stop enactment of this law. And they note in their legal petition many of the members of Congress who passed the law, Natalie, have and use TikTok accounts themselves,” he chided. Meanwhile, on NBC’s Today, correspondent Savannah Sellers quoted the damaging part of the filing but failed to connect the dots: TikTok and ByteDance arguing the law’s requirement to divest “disregarded less extreme alternatives” and “is simply not possible: not commercially, not technologically, not legally.” Going on to say: “The Chinese government has made it clear it would not permit a divestment...” Lawyers also arguing that TikTok is protected under the First Amendment's guarantee freedom of expression. The networks still refused to mention that TikTok users had threatened to kill a U.S. Senator and commit suicide after TikTok directed their users to contact their congressional representatives. The transcripts are below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s Good Morning America May 8, 2024 7:13:43 a.m. Eastern ROBIN ROBERTS: Now to TikTok suing the federal government over the law that would force its Chinese owners to sell the video-sharing app. Our senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott has the latest. Good morning to you, Rachel. RACHEL SCOTT: Hey, Robing. Good morning to you. TikTok is taking on the federal government, setting up a showdown in court over free speech and national security. It has been two weeks since the President signed that bipartisan bill into law that forces TikTok's Chinese parent company to either sell the app or face a total ban in the United States. Well, this morning, TikTok's parent company is making it clear they cannot and will not be selling the platform. So, on one end of this, you have a bipartisan group of lawmakers, even the President, they are arguing that TikTok poses a national security risk and that by using the platform the Chinese government could have access to your data, including your browsing history, even your location. TikTok denies those allegations. They say it would take years for them to find a new set of engineers to figure out how to program the platform and that it would force a shutdown of the app here in the United States by January of next year. They also argue a ban infringes on the rights of 170 million Americans who use the platform here in the United States. In this lawsuit, TikTok also points out that the Biden campaign continues to use the platform even after the President signed that bill into law. They insist that completely undermines their argument that it poses a risk to Americans’ safety. The bottom line, TikTok will remain available in the United States as this plays out in the courts. Michael. MICHAEL STRAHAN: All right, Rachel. Thank you very much for that. CBS Mornings May 8, 2024 7:24:21 a.m. Eastern NATALIE MORALES: TikTok is going to court to try to stop a new law that could lead to a nationwide ban on the social media giant. It says the law demanding that it sever ties with its China-based parent company would stifle free speech. However, supporters of the measure say it is essential for national security. Scott Macfarlane is on Capitol Hill. Scott, good morning. SCOTT MACFARLANE: Natalie, good morning. TikTok says it's being asked to do the impossible -- to be divested or sold to an approved buyer by their China-based owner ByteDance within months or face a ban in the United States. They say that's a violation of the First Amendment and that they're being singled out because of their ties to China. In their new legal petition, they say, “There's no question the act will force a shutdown of TikTok by January 19th, 2025, silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate in ways that cannot be replicated elsewhere.” Congress overwhelmingly and swiftly passed this law arguing TikTok’s ties to China are a national security concerned and risk the private data of its users. One House committee chair says TikTok is like a spy balloon in your phone. The company denies those allegations and has asked a court to delay or stop enactment of this law. And they note in their legal petition many of the members of Congress who passed the law, Natalie, have and use TikTok accounts themselves. MORALES: So interesting. All right, Scott. We'll be following this one.

After weeks of defending pro-hams campus protests, the media are now panicking that those same protests might hurt biden’s re-election chances. In the past week, a slew of political commentators have written articles comparing the current situation on college campuses to the anti-war protests of 1968, and warning that a summer of radical leftism may clinch the 2024 election for Donald Trump. CNN’s Jake Tapper put it best during the April 29 edition of The Lead: When you look at these protests, these images, when you see the controversies about the ones that have an antisemitic element, and on and on, just like what you’re seeing on the side of your screen right now. Do you think to yourself... “Wow, this is a real in-kind contribution to Donald Trump.” The corporate media are certainly aware that these protests are unpopular. But rather than condemn them outright, their focus is instead on what that means for their preferred Presidential candidate. Watch:

IDF spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Peter Lerner admirably managed to calmly, but firmly educate CNN Newsroom host Jim Acosta on Wednesday that there is “no magic wand” that will force Hamas to surrender amid Acosta’s pestering and insistence that enough is enough. As a White House correspondent during the Trump years, Acosta portrayed himself as an uncompromising fighter for truth. Now, in May 2024, Acosta put that aside for the idea that if a position is popular, it must be valid, “But Colonel Lerner, you must know, that there’s tremendous— there is tremendous condemnation that is coming in from all corners across the world that the cost to the civilian population in Gaza is too high. You must know that.”     He further added, “I understand what you're saying in terms of taking out leaders of Hamas and achieving these military objectives, and of course, what they were responsible for on October 7 is heinous, but don't you think you've reached a point now where, I mean, when you're hearing this kind of condemnation coming in from all corners across the globe that the price that is being paid by civilians is so high? There's just, there's just so much you can do — what you're doing right now.” Lerner began his response by mourning, “The price of the civilians, Israelis and Palestinians, are paying for this war are both horrific and tragic. There is no magic prescription to wish Hamas away. There is no magic wand that will make them miraculously disappear. If that could happen, that would be the chosen way of operations.” He continued, “Unfortunately, for us to achieve our goals of changing the security reality for Israelis and Palestinians alike, there is only one way that Hamas goes and is through the military action, you don't see them raising a white flag. You see them conducting a counteroffer to a deal that Israel, a generous deal—” Acosta then interrupted, “The civilians are saying the civilians—the civilians, folks at the World Food Program, members of Congress here in Washington, have essentially been pleading with you to please change these tactics because the cost of the civilian population is too high and Hamas is not coming out waving the white flag, but you are hearing—” As Acosta was repeating his argumentum ad populum, Lerner asked, “So, are you suggesting—are you suggesting Israel surrenders to Hamas?” Ignoring that critical question, Acosta rolled on, “You’re hearing from around the world that suffering is at a point that, that has just become too much.” Lerner then repeated his own question, “The suffering on both sides is terrible, the suffering, the reality on both sides is terrible and indeed we wish for a peaceful resolution, but unfortunately, our enemies that are bent on our destruction have no intention on living side-by-side in peace with Israel so what should we do? Surrender to Hamas and hope they don’t do it again when they promised that they will do it again and again and again given the chance?” Neither Acosta nor any of the groups he cited as a good answer to that. They have no knowledge, let alone, expertise, in military matters, but feel they get to lecture Israel on precisely that. They claim Hamas shouldn’t rule Gaza and then demand Israel stop its war on Hamas. They add that the suffering has gone on for too long and then demand Israel adopt policies that would prolong the war and hence, the suffering. It’s enough to drive a lesser man than Lerner insane. Here is a transcript for the May 8 show: CNN Newsroom 5/8/2024 11:26 AM ET JIM ACOSTA: But Colonel Lerner, you must know, that there’s tremendous— there is tremendous condemnation that is coming in from all corners across the world that the cost to the civilian population in Gaza is too high. You must know that. I understand what you're saying in terms of taking out leaders of Hamas and achieving these military objectives, and of course, what they were responsible for on October 7 is heinous, but don't you think you've reached a point now where, I mean, when you're hearing this kind of condemnation coming in from all corners across the globe that the price that is being paid by civilians is so high? There's just, there's just so much you can do — what you're doing right now. PETER LERNER: The price of the civilians, Israelis and Palestinians, are paying for this war are both horrific and tragic. There is no magic prescription to wish Hamas away. There is no magic wand that will make them miraculously disappear. If that could happen, that would be the chosen way of operations. Unfortunately, for us to achieve our goals of changing the security reality for Israelis and Palestinians alike, there is only one way that Hamas goes and is through the military action, you don't see them raising a white flag. You see them conducting a counteroffer to a deal that Israel, a generous deal— ACOSTA: The civilians are saying the civilians—the civilians, folks at the World Food Program, members of Congress here in Washington, have essentially been pleading with you to please change these tactics because the cost of the civilian population is too high and Hamas is not coming out waving the white flag, but you are hearing—” LERNER: So, are you suggesting—are you suggesting Israel surrenders to Hamas? ACOSTA: -- You’re hearing from around the world that suffering is at a point that, that has just become too much. LERNER: The suffering on both sides is terrible, the suffering, the reality on both sides is terrible and indeed we wish for a peaceful resolution, but unfortunately, our enemies that are bent on our destruction have no intention on living side-by-side in peace with Israel so what should we do? Surrender to Hamas and hope they don’t do it again when they promised that they will do it again and again and again given the chance?

Back on Saturday during his Fox News Channel Show Life, Liberty, & Levin, our friend and conservative talk radio legend Mark Levin used his opening monologue to torch President Biden and his allies in the liberal media for downplaying the animalistic October 7, 2023 terror attacks by Hamas on innocents in Israel the further we get from the attacks to commiserate with Gazans (despite their reported widespread support for their government’s attacks). Levin began by tearing into Biden’s brief May 2 speech about the pro-Islamic terrorism college students, calling it “not so much a speech” and instead “a statement” by a “pathetic” man with “linguini for a spine” and who’s “ so thoroughly pathetic” with “no moral center”.     Biden continued, taking issue with the media’s refusal to show (or even return to) the graphic footage from the attacks: How many news organizations, how many news platforms have played for you the video of what took place on October 7? Well, a lot of it. It’s on the internet. We have a lot of it because the monsters who perpetrated those heinous crimes of inhumanity, they took the video. They are very proud of it. The video was captured by the IDF, the Israelis. As I say, it is online. There’s a 47-minute video that shows in excruciating detail how the Islamist Hamas Nazis murdered people, raped people, butchered people, burned them alive, decapitated them, cut off their breasts, shot them in the groin. Oh, there’s all kinds of stuff — mass rape. Have you ever seen it on TV? Cable or network. No, you haven’t. Why? You haven’t even seen video that doesn’t show the worst of it, video where the terrorists are just going through the Nova festival field showing — showing of the kids they murdered, shot in the back, shot in the chest, shot in the head. Have you seen any of that on TV? No, you haven’t seen any of it. “[W]e don’t get video in our media, our main media of October 7. Oh, it is too gruesome. Instead, we get these looped videos over and over again of buildings in Gaza that have been destroyed because Hamas either destroyed them or they had the terrorists there, or they had their munitions there, and of course, it’s Israel’s fault,” he lamented. Levin dropped the hammer: “[Y]ou won’t see the video that exists. Why is that? It’s called censorship. That’s why. The American media is censoring what took place on October 7. Again, you can see it online, but the mass media where most people go for their news, you won’t see it. It is being covered up.” Levin expanded on this contrast and the lengths General Dwight D. Eisenhower went to ensure the horrors left behind were broadcast (click “expand”): When soldiers of the Fourth Armored Division entered the camp, they discovered piles of bodies, some covered with lime, others partially incinerated on pyres. The ghastly nature of their discovery led General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe to visit the camp on April 12th, with Generals George S. Patton and Omar Bradley.And after his visit, Eisenhower cabled General George C. Marshall, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from Washington, describing his trip to the death camp. He said, “the things I saw beggar description...The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering so as to leave me a bit sick...I made the visit deliberately in order to be in a position to give firsthand evidence of these things, if ever in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’” Eisenhower’s cable to Marshall on April 19, 1945, and I quote: “We continue to discover German concentration camps for political prisoners, which conditions of indescribable horror prevail.” From Eisenhower to General Marshall for eyes only. “I visited one of these myself, and I show you that whatever has been printed on them today has been understated. If you would see any advantage and asking about a dozen leaders of Congress and a dozen prominent editors to take a short visit to this theater in a couple of C-54s, I will arrange to have them conducted to one of these places, where the evidence of bestiality and cruelty is so overpowering, as to leave no doubt in their minds about the normal practices of the Germans in these camps. I am hopeful that some British individuals in similar categories will visit the northern area to witness similar evidence of atrocities.” And then Eisenhower the same day received this response: “Your proposal has been cleared and approved by the Secretary of War and the President.” — Truman — “Plans are being formulated and you will be kept advised.” This is what Eisenhower wrote in “Crusade in Europe” in its pages in his book: “The same day, [April 12, 1945], I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I’ve never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face-to-face with the indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I’m certain however, that I’ve never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock. I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at firsthand about these things in case they ever grew up at home, the belief or assumption that the stories of Nazi brutality were just ‘propaganda’. Some members of the visiting party were unable through the ordeal to go through it. I only did so, but as soon as I returned to Patton’s headquarters that evening, I’d sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany, a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that will leave no room for cynical doubt.” He said: “Of all these displaced persons, the Jews were in the most deplorable condition. For years, they’d been beaten, starved, and tortured.” And in Ike, the Soldier: As They Knew Him, Merle Miller quotes Eisenhower speaking on April 25, 1945 to members of Congress and the journalists who had been shown Buchenwald the day before. He said: “You saw only one camp yesterday, there are many others. Your responsibilities, I believe, extend into a great field at informing the people at home of things like these atrocities is one of them...Nothing is covered up. We have nothing to conceal. The barbarous treatment of these people received in the German concentration camps is almost unbelievable. I want you to see for yourself and be spokesman for the United States.” Back in 2024, Levin noted the lack of (constant) focus on the horrors on October 7 by the liberal media is because “they are giving aid and comfort to the terrorists to Iran, to Hamas, to Hezbollah, to the Houthis, to the PLO” as well as “their front organization, Students for Justice in Palestine, the Jewish Vote, CAIR” and “the Marxist and Islamist professors”. Later, Levin powerfully concluded that not only will history look poorly on Biden, but the President and his allies in academia who’ve “given aid and comfort to the modern Nazis, in Iran, Hamas, and in our own country, the Hitler Youth and the imams that spew their hate” will be remembered like those in the 1930s and 1940s who “gave aid and comfort to Nazi Germany”. To see the relevant Fox transcript from May 4, click here.

Clinical psychologist and podcast host Jordan B. Peterson and X owner Elon Musk were flabbergasted by Canada’s latest infringement on civil liberties, anti-hate speech bill C-63. On May 7, Musk and Peterson responded to Canada's proposed “hate” speech bill. The bill, called. “Online Harms Bill C-63,” would implement fines of up to $50,000 on individuals who post “content that foments hatred” or “that, given the context in which it is communicated, is likely to foment detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of such a prohibited ground.”  Musk initially responded to an X post by user Camus, who pointed out that C-63 would enable ex post facto fines for “hate speech” on social media. “This sounds insane if accurate!” wrote Musk. This sounds insane if accurate!@CommunityNotes, please check https://t.co/RB1Ea0upTk — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 7, 2024 Jordan Peterson seconded Musk’s sentiments and expressed his alarm over the bill, saying it was reminiscent of George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. Mr. Musk@elonmusk It's much much worse than you have been informed: plans to shackle Canadians electronically if accusers fear a "hate crime" might (might) be committed. It's the most Orwellian piece of legislation ever promoted in the West:https://t.co/oSqX3pxiBB — Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) May 7, 2024 “It’s much much worse than you have been informed: plans to shackle Canadians electronically if accusers fear a ‘hate crime’ might (might) be committed,” Peterson posted at Musk. “It’s the most Orwellian piece of legislation ever promoted in the West:” Peterson has previously been very critical of the new bill and even dedicated a nearly two-hour interview with TRIGGERnometry host Konstantin Kisin and Canadian lawyer Bruce Pardy to point out why it is dangerous. “It is the most totalitarian Western bill I’ve ever seen,” said Peterson during the April 22 interview.  C-63 would create a new Digital Safety Commission to maintain compliance with the law by “social media operators” and to work with said companies to develop new regulations that would define government-sanctioned speech.   The bill would mandate that social media operators allow users to flag content as harmful. It would also require operators to designate a “resource person” to process claims against harmful content and “direct users to internal and external resources to address their concerns” including “the [Digital Safety] Commission or a law enforcement agency.” Under the bill, social media companies must create “digital safety plans” to be shared with the Digital Safety Commission. Social media operators that refuse to comply or hinder the Commission would be subject to heavy fines of “not more than 8% of the operator’s gross global revenue or $25 million, whichever is greater…” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable

The View has championed so-called “criminal justice reform” efforts, praised cases of convicted criminals getting rulings overturned, and condemned former President Trump for his past calls to convict the Central Park Five. But on Wednesday’s edition of The View, moderator Whoopi Goldberg lashed out at Trump and proclaimed that he wouldn’t be in court if he didn’t commit the crimes he was accused of. Goldberg’s bitter rant came at the conclusion of their first segment when they reacted to the court testimony of porn star Stormy Daniels. Just before going to a commercial break, she popped off about how Trump being in court was all the evidence needed to prove he was guilty: GOLDBERG: You know, I just think if you didn't do it, why are you in the court? (…) GOLDBERG: Why are you there? (…) GOLDBERG: You brought this on yourself. You did this to you. Nobody did this to you. You told the untruth. You took stuff. This is on you. This isn't them. It isn't the judge. This is yours. Faux-conservative co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin suggested that Trump’s refusal to testify also proved his guilt and “comedian” Joy Behar added that “O.J. didn’t take the stand either.”     Earlier in the segment, Farah Griffin whined that “This whole trial” was giving her “the ick.” She was “so frustrated it's the first trial that we're seeing of Trump and potentially only before the election.” Farah Griffin lamented that Daniels’ testimony was a “mixed bag.” She claimed the porn star, who has lied publically, was “a credible person” but “hurt her credibility” by giving “salacious details” about her alleged affair with Trump. “We all met her. We had her on the show,” she reminded the rest of the cast. “I would have liked to hear from Stormy who is a mom, who wants to live a private life, wants to put this behind her, has been exploited by countless men in her life, Donald Trump, Michael Avenatti. And she’s there under subpoena just to confirm what she's able to.” Always able to prioritize the important things, Behar spouted off about how she didn’t “trust” Trump with the nuclear codes because he allegedly didn’t “think to wear a condom when he's having sex with a porn star.” Without evidence, Behar also decried the documents case in Florida getting pushed back by claiming Trump “could have given [the documents] to any dictator in the world!” “He may not go to jail for this but the American people can see what he is. He's a despicable person and we have to remember that,” she tried to calm herself down. What was actually worth remembering was that last year, The View decried the legal notion that Trump was entitled to a fair trial. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 8, 2024 11:04:58 a.m. Eastern (…) ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: This whole trial is giving me the ick. I'm so frustrated it's the first trial that we're seeing of Trump and potentially only before the election. Here’s my thing. Stormy’s testimony was a mixed bag for me. So, we all met her – JOY BEHAR: It was a what? FARAH GRIFFIN: Mixed bag. We all met her. We had her on the show. I actually don’t believe she needed to into salacious detail. I would have liked to hear from Stormy who is a mom, who wants to live a private life, wants to put this behind her, has been exploited by countless men in her life, Donald Trump, Michael Avenatti. And she’s there under subpoena just to confirm what she's able to. SUNNY HOSTIN: She said some of that. FARAH GRIFFIN: But I think if you're a juror – cause then she is showed to have lied on Jimmy Kimmel and then she gets into these salacious details. I think it hurt her credibility and she is a credible person. I absolutely believe that this affair took place. BEHAR: I thought it was very – go ahead. FARAH GRIFFIN: But my two things. There’s two things they have to prove: the campaign finance side of it. I think that's been proved. I think a consideration was how it would affect his campaign. But the falsifying business records, that’s tough. HOSTIN: Why? Why do you think it’s tough? FARAH GRIFFIN: He signed some things but he’s going to say, “I run an organization with thousands of employees, I make a lot of money, I sign things all the time my attorneys put in front of me.” (…) 11:07:25 a.m. Eastern BEHAR: I don't trust a guy with the nuclear codes who doesn't think to wear a condom when he's having sex with a porn star. I'm sorry. I think that it may – as you say, the other one down in Florida Cannon, that judge needs to be taken to task because she keeps kicking the can down the road on that whole trial – HOSTIN: It's indefinite now. BEHAR: - with the documents, which he could have given to any dictator in the world! And we’re not going to see that until after he's in office and then he’ll probably get rid of everybody who disagrees with him! But – He may not go to jail for this but the American people can see what he is. He's a despicable person and we have to remember that. (…) 11:10:47 a.m. Eastern WHOOPI GOLDBERG: You know, I just think if you didn't do it, why are you in the court? FARAH GRIFFIN: Or testifying. BEHAR: Get on the stand! FARAH GRIFFIN: He won’t. GOLDBERG: Why are you there? FARAH GRIFFIN: Because he will not be able to say “I did not have sex with that woman.” BEHAR: O.J. didn’t take the stand either. GOLDBERG: You brought this on yourself. You did this to you. Nobody did this to you. You told the untruth. You took stuff. This is on you. This isn't them. It isn't the judge. This is yours. BEHAR: Look in the mirror. GOLDBERG: We'll be right back.

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr roasted TikTok’s “arrogance” as it attempts to escape severing its ties with the communist Chinese government. Last month, President Joe Biden signed a bill that would force TikTok’s Chinese-controlled parent company, ByteDance to divest itself from TikTok, or risk being banned from the U.S. market entirely. On Tuesday, TikTok responded to the bill with a legal challenge, claiming that divestiture is “impossible” and “infeasible.” But Carr is not buying it. “While TikTok trots out the expected grab bag of arguments, it adopts a strange strategy of ignoring the reason for the law,” Carr stated in an X post. “TikTok wants this to be a case about the content of its speech. It is not. It is about TikTok's malign conduct - conduct the Constitution doesn't protect.” Carr further addressed some of TikTok’s ludicrous claims in a follow-up post in which he said that “TikTok's legal filing gives away the game in several ways” and noted the platform’s continued hypocrisy as it is once again caught red-handed. “Despite claiming independence from Beijing, TikTok now concedes that it is the CCP (not TikTok) that controls the fate of its algorithm and foreign commercial transactions,” Carr noted.  Indeed, in its legal filing, TikTok admitted as much when it claimed that China’s regulation of exported technologies would prevent divestiture. “[T]he Chinese government has made clear that it would not permit a divestment of the recommendation engine that is key to the success of TikTok in The United States,” the platform wrote in its legal complaint launched against Attorney General Merrick Garland. Carr similarly drew attention to TikTok’s claim that it would be “impossible” to transfer its source code to a new owner. “Despite claiming for years that TikTok's national security threat could be addressed by having U.S.-based engineers inspect its millions of lines of code, TikTok now says that outside engineers would be unable to understand the complex code,” Carr wrote. In a third post, the FCC commissioner summed up the communist Chinese government-controlled platform’s flagrant and consistent pattern of claiming one thing and doing another as “arrogance.” “Arrogance is saying that U.S. user data doesn't even exist in China while TikTok's internal communications show ‘everything is seen in China,’” Carr declared. “Arrogance is claiming that TikTok U.S. is independent while former employees have made clear that Beijing-based personnel are calling the shots,” he later added. Carr went on ultimately concluding: “Arrogance is believing that TikTok could present a clear and present danger to U.S. national security and America would simply allow that threat to persist. Our Constitution compels no such result.” Arrogance is saying that U.S. user data doesn't even exist in China while TikTok's internal communications show "everything is seen in China." Arrogance is denying that TikTok illicitly surveilled the locations of Americans (and deriding the reporting as lacking "journalistic… https://t.co/qB0Gx7Ws9v — Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) May 8, 2024 Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

On Wednesday, the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters executive editor Tim Graham testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations during a hearing on the decades-long liberal boondoggle that is National Public Radio (NPR). Not surprisingly, he came armed with examples of their virulent bias and hate for conservatives. Joined by Americans for Tax Reform’s James Erwin, the American Enterprise Institute’s Howard Husock, and Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron, Graham took questions from lawmakers that fell into all-predictable camps of Republicans recognizing the problem and Democrats not only denying reality, but accusing critics of NPR of putting the lives of journalists in danger. Before we dive into the highlights and lowlights, here was Graham’s opening statement, which included examples dating back to the 1980s of NPR’s shameless partisan hackery (click “expand”):     I represent the Media Research Center, America’s preeminent conservative media watchdog organization. It was founded in 1987, and I joined up in 1989. We monitor national media outlets on a daily basis and provide daily coverage of the media’s tilt at NewsBusters.org.  Uri Berliner obviously tried to make the point that media bias became a bigger problem when Donald Trump ran for president. We are here to tell you this has been a problem for a very long time. NPR legal reporter Nina Totenberg destroyed the Douglas Ginsburg nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987, then she tried again with Clarence Thomas in 1991. They energetically channeled the accusers of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, and when a man arrived in an Uber on Kavanaugh’s street two years ago with weapons and plans to assassinate Kavanaugh, NPR failed to file a single feature story on it. Nina Totenberg could not be found. NPR, a supposed source of civility, didn’t demonstrate that cared one bit about this potential political violence. But in March, between Morning Edition and Fresh Air, Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford was granted an hour of taxpayer-funded air time to reproduce her unproven charges of teenaged sexual assault. Now, most of us, what we remember best has been mentioned. The Exhibit A here of NPR’s bias is the New York Post series on Hunter Biden’s laptop in October of 2020. Most of the so-called “mainstream media” tried to dismiss this story – falsely – as Russian disinformation. But NPR stood out. NPR’s Public Editor Kelly McBride quoted Terence Samuel, NPR’s Managing Editor for News. He said: “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.” He dismissed the Post stories as a “politically driven event.” That’s interesting, since you could argue Nina Totenberg’s hostile reporting on Supreme Court nominees created “politically driven events.” Instead of seeking to investigate the Biden family’s influence-peddling, NPR’s Morning Edition broadcast a story titled “Experts Say Attack On Hunter Biden’s Addiction Deepens Stigma For Millions.” There wasn’t one word in it about Hunter Biden’s business practices involving his father, which was the point of the Post stories. The pattern continues today. When a House Oversight Committee had a hearing in March that Hunter Biden where he was supposed to appear, NPR’s All Things Considered wouldn’t consider a feature story on it. NPR covered the Pelosi-picked House January 6 Committee live for every minute, and then it couldn’t do a two-minute story on the Biden impeachment inquiry. Instead, the next morning NPR’s homepage was topped the next morning by their hot story: new details on Rupert Murdoch’s British phone-hacking scandal of 2011. NPR’s website did have a Biden mention. White House reporter Deepa Shivaram had a TikTok-like video shoot on President Biden grabbing a trendy boba tea in Las Vegas under the headline “Food stops can tell you a lot about a campaign.” NPR, that network of civility, also has encouraged chaos and disorder in society: On August 27, 2020, NPR’s blog “Code Switch”, with the slogan “Race In Your Face,” posted an interview promoting a new book titled In Defense of Looting. On The NPR Politics Podcast on July 17, 2021,they promoted a book by Yale law professor Elizabeth Hinton saying that protests against policy should not — they shouldn’t be called riots. They should be called “rebellions”. On NPR’s Fresh Air on April 15, 2023, their movie critic John Powers praised the movie How to Blow Up a Pipeline, hailing it as “hugely timely”. You know, this is what NPR is doing. They can devote our taxpayer dollars to getting behind looting, rioting, and blowing up pipelines . And yet, NPR represents the Republicans as uniquely extreme. We’ve seen this throughout this Congress where they come on and say, “oh, the hard right Republicans are ruining everything.” Um, they were doing this morning discussing Miss Taylor Greene, but they have had several sappy interviews with Hakeem Jeffries. Steve Inskeep at one said — said, “you say to Republicans drive the car off the cliff. We are not going to grab the wheel.” This is the way they treat Republicans, basically as nutballs who are gonna drive the car off the cliff. You might understand that’s why we might get a little upset. Congressman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) was on the flip side, accusing those investigating NPR’s political tilt of a “disturbing” return to “the dark days of McCarthyism” when, instead, the House should crack down on private “right-wing media organizations that have a long history of peddling misinformation, disinformation, promoting partisan agendas and sowing fear and division.” “Public cynicism about the media doesn’t come from NPR. It comes from the right-wing media,” he added as if to suggest NPR hasn’t done anything itself to harm its reputation. Congresswoman and full committee Chairwoman Cathy McMorris-Rodgers (R-WA) was the first member in the Q&A to speak with Graham, which afforded him the chance to call out Ranking Member Cathy Castor’s (D-FL) for claiming media critics are akin to Russia’s Vladimir Putin and those in the Chinese Communist Party: .@HouseCommerce Chair @CathyMcMorris on @NPR: “Mr. Graham, I’ll start with you. As you’re aware, Mr. [Uri] Berliner, in — wrote this op-ed, and in it, quote, he says, “By 2023, the picture was completely different. Only 11% describe themselves as very or somewhat conservative,… pic.twitter.com/QO7TTwvlMX — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 8, 2024 As the Democratic witness, Aaron served as a stand-in for NPR and lamented to Pallone that the motives of journalists would be questioned. This led Pallone to argue adversarial critiques of the news media are acts of political intimidation. Aaron agreed and said sustained (and outside) criticism of journalists made them “more timid, more cautious, more unwilling to ask hard questions” and thus it’s not only “harder for them to do their job”, but their lives are on the line. Moments later, Congressman Jeff Duncan used his time to lambaste NPR as “a Democrat propaganda machine funded by U.S. tax dollars” and mock the idea they’re providing “objective reporting”: GOP @RepJeffDuncan on @NPR in @HouseCommerce hearing: “You know, I used to drive 65,000 miles a year in my truck and like Mr. [@TimJGraham], I used to listen to NPR a good bit. In fact, I enjoyed All Things Considered. But unfortunately all things aren't considered now. The… pic.twitter.com/11JKUZq1bR — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 8, 2024 Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) went to Graham after noting “there’s a hunger in our society for just plain, unbiased news” that also doesn’t send blood pressures soaring. She asked Graham about what’s needed “to ensure NPR provides impartial coverage and serves a broader audience”:     And, in response to a question from Lesko, Erwin brought up what precipitated the last congressional hearing about NPR (that Graham also testified at), which was “a scandal where local affiliates were sharing donor lists with Democratic Party operatives” and suggested a remedy of allowing taxpayers to opt out of funding NPR (and PBS) on their tax forms. Congressman Gary Palmer (R-AL) astutely focused on the connection public broadcast has to far-left foundations: .@USRepGaryPalmer at @HouseCommerce hearing on @NPR: “I'd like to respond to my Democratic colleagues concerns about local media and the role that NPR plays in that. There was an article that pointed out that traditional outlets like The New York Times have moved so far to the… pic.twitter.com/pZFCMJKtWf — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 8, 2024 Later, Congressman Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Aaron fretted it’s “very dangerous” to be “attacking the media” because that’s how “democracies” die:     Sanity was restored when Congressman John Joyce (R-PA) acknowledged that “my constituents in south Central and southwestern Pennsylvania would be a target audience for NPR” with large, rural swaths dependent “on radio for news for emergency alerts and more”, but aren’t as NPR’s squandered away their trust with their liberal biases. Graham explained how NPR has strayed from its mission of representing all voices by explaining how, oftentimes, stories will claim to feature a Republican voice, but said voice will be from, say, Liz Cheney. Congressman Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) closed out the hearing by adding his voice to what were a parade of voices on the Republican side denouncing NPR CEO Katherine Maher from declining to appear before the committee. He then asked Graham about NPR’s future with Maher (click “expand”):     CRENSHAW: [Y]ou’ve collected a pretty impressive assortment of NPR’s failures on — and — and failures to have unbiased reporting. Give us your thoughts on that and is Ms. Maher a good — a good fit to change course? GRAHAM: Oh, I don’t think there’s any intention to change course. I think that’s why she was selected. It would be interesting to hear her try to explain, you know, what it is that they’re trying to do, because when we listen to this radio network on a regular basis, it’s quite clear. You can understand why the Democrats don’t want to have a hearing about this. It works very, very well for them, right? You can understand why the gentleman from Free Press has to say he’s not here to represent public broadcasting, but they’re very closely affiliated and fight for the funding together. You know, obviously, Democrats like the system exactly as it is right now. CRENSHAW: Yeah. GRAHAM: And so, the very least we can do is — yes, have the CEO in and try to explain who in there is doing anything to suggest maybe we should have a more balanced set of interviews. CRENSHAW: Yeah. GRAHAM: Let’s — let’s have a more balanced set of journalists. You won’t see anybody from Fox News on NPR. CRENSHAW: No, and you would think that’s what the whole point — if you’re gonna do unbiased media, then it has to be unbiased. Biased media is okay. You know, just — just admit it, though. MSNBC does not try to claim that it’s unbiased. I don’t even think Fox tries to claim it’s unbiased anymore. It’s just not right. It’s we’ve had. We’ve had biased media in this country since their founding, but if you’re going to be a taxpayer-funded media company, you actually have to adhere to the principles of — of unbiased news broadcasting or say the quiet part out loud and maybe that’s the benefit of the new CEO. She has said the quiet part out loud, pretty clearly. And so, there can be no — there can be no question about what direction NPR is headed and it — and it can be simply written off and maybe we should — we should look at ways to defund it. How — how would we in Congress, perhaps, some suggestions on how we would change course in NPR? To see the relevant transcript from the hearing on May 8, click here.

MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos has once again proven himself to be an independent thinker, someone who calls them as he sees them and doesn't dutifully toe the liberal media line. In the past, we've noted Cevallos saying that Roe was ripe to be overturned, because there was no constitutional basis for it. More recently, he called a Hunter Biden plea deal not merely a sweetheart deal, but a "gift from Heaven." Cevallos was back at his iconoclastic truth-telling on today's Morning Joe. He repeatedly called Stormy Daniels' testimony in Donald Trump's hush money trial a "major issue" available to the defense for the appeal of any possible conviction, which could lead to it being overturned. The notion was that her testimony was excessively prejudicial to Trump. Cevallos analogized the situation to the recent overturning of one of Harvey Weinstein's convictions on the grounds that overly prejudicial testimony had been admitted. Cevallos mentioned that even though trial judge Juan Merchan had rejected a defense motion for a mistrial based on Daniels' testimony, he did acknowledge that some of her testimony perhaps should not have been allowed. Said Cevallos: "If you're a defense attorney, you're marking your notebook, and now you have your first major issue." Concluded Cevallos: Concluded Cevallos: "So if two years from now, we're back here saying, the conviction got overturned: this is terrible! Well, this might be what we look at. And we can say, well, the prosecution took a calculated risk, and it's yielded benefits in the last 24 hours. But maybe in a couple years, those benefits will not have been worth the risk.        Bonus Coverage: Scarborough Bigfoots Mika Again -- And Again! Amid a press report that Mika is fed up with the incessant interruptions of Joe Scarborogh -- her husband co-host -- Scarborough was back at his bigfooting of Mika in the very first minute of today's show. It was clear from Mika's facial expression and body language that she was not pleased. Mika even emitted a "wow" in reaction to Joe's rude recidivism. Scarborough acknowledged that his latest interruption was sure to incite lots of email criticism. And despite asking Mika to forgive him, just three minutes later Scarborough cut Mika off yet again! Mika has forged a side career based on her "Know Your Value" books and conferences. The notion is to encourage and empower women to stick up for themselves in their careers. So, not a good look for Mika to permit herself to be regularly trampled by Bully Boy Scarborough.  View Rude Joe in action here.