lifesitenews--2020-05-28--Lawsuit filed against cops who forcibly carried off peaceful protester, fined $1,200

EDMONTON , Alberta , May 27 , 2020 — The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms ( jccf.ca ) is representing two Edmonton residents , Pat Tipper and Cory Teichroew , after the men were detained by Alberta Sheriffs and ticketed during a peaceful rally at the Alberta Legislature grounds .
Both of the tickets , for “ contravening section 73 ( 1 ) of the Public Health Act ” , are in the amount of $ 1,200 .
On the afternoon of Sunday , May 10 , approximately 50 people attended the Edmonton Legislature grounds to rally and express their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the recent gun ban imposed by the federal government and the current lockdown measures imposed by the Alberta Government .
The rally-goers were spread out and maintaining at least 2 meters distance from each other .
Also in attendance were at least 20 Sheriffs and Edmonton Police officers .
A few of the rally-goers , including Pat Tipper , had megaphones and gave speeches while others listened .
The rally was peaceful .
After about 30 minutes , three teams of three Sheriffs each moved among the people and targeted specific individuals .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Aboriginal man .
One of the Sheriffs pointed at him and said “ that one ” .
Three Sheriffs surrounded him , handcuffed him and took him away .
He was then given a $ 1,200 ticket for “ contravening section 73 ( 1 ) of the Public Health Act ” .
No explanation was provided to Mr. Teichroew as to what law he had supposedly broken .
Mr. Tipper was also escorted by Sheriffs off the Legislature grounds and given a similar ticket as Mr. Teichroew .
Meanwhile , three Sheriffs picked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him away by his arms and legs .
None of the individuals were within two meters of anyone else when they were apprehended by Sheriffs .
“ The Canadian Constitution protects the rights of people to peacefully assemble and to express their opinions in public places , especially at places with symbolic democratic importance such as the Legislature grounds .
The Charter does not cease to protect these rights , even during a declared public health emergency , ” stated Justice Centre lawyer James Kitchen .
“ COVID-19 has not suspended the rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a heavy-handed and arbitrary manner by handcuffing and ticketing Mr. Teichroew and detaining and ticketing Mr. Tipper while they were peacefully exercising their constitutional rights at the Legislature grounds.
” Published with permission from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms .

Three sheriffs surrounded one plaintiff, handcuffed him, and took him away.
EDMONTON, Alberta, May 27, 2020 — The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca) is representing two Edmonton residents, Pat Tipper and Cory Teichroew, after the men were detained by Alberta Sheriffs and ticketed during a peaceful rally at the Alberta Legislature grounds. Both of the tickets, for “contravening section 73(1) of the Public Health Act”, are in the amount of $1,200.
On the afternoon of Sunday, May 10, approximately 50 people attended the Edmonton Legislature grounds to rally and express their views regarding various issues, such as the recent gun ban imposed by the federal government and the current lockdown measures imposed by the Alberta Government. The rally-goers were spread out and maintaining at least 2 meters distance from each other. Also in attendance were at least 20 Sheriffs and Edmonton Police officers.
A few of the rally-goers, including Pat Tipper, had megaphones and gave speeches while others listened.
The rally was peaceful. After about 30 minutes, three teams of three Sheriffs each moved among the people and targeted specific individuals. The first was Cory Teichroew, an Aboriginal man. One of the Sheriffs pointed at him and said “that one”. Three Sheriffs surrounded him, handcuffed him and took him away. He was then given a $1,200 ticket for “contravening section 73(1) of the Public Health Act”. No explanation was provided to Mr. Teichroew as to what law he had supposedly broken.
Mr. Tipper was also escorted by Sheriffs off the Legislature grounds and given a similar ticket as Mr. Teichroew. Meanwhile, three Sheriffs picked up another man sitting peacefully and carried him away by his arms and legs. None of the individuals were within two meters of anyone else when they were apprehended by Sheriffs.
“The Canadian Constitution protects the rights of people to peacefully assemble and to express their opinions in public places, especially at places with symbolic democratic importance such as the Legislature grounds. The Charter does not cease to protect these rights, even during a declared public health emergency,” stated Justice Centre lawyer James Kitchen.
“COVID-19 has not suspended the rule of law. The Sheriffs acted in a heavy-handed and arbitrary manner by handcuffing and ticketing Mr. Teichroew and detaining and ticketing Mr. Tipper while they were peacefully exercising their constitutional rights at the Legislature grounds.”
Published with permission from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-29--Just released video testimony shows Planned Parenthood admitting to illegal baby parts sales

SAN FRANCISCO , May 28 , 2020 ( Operation Rescue ) — Sixteen unsealed excerpts of sworn video testimony from Planned Parenthood executives were released Tuesday by the Center for Medical Progress ( CMP ) , which shows in their own words that Planned Parenthood was involved in obtaining “ donations ” of fetal tissue organs from women having abortions , only to illegally sell them to middle-man organ procurement companies for profit .
The video testimony was presented in court during a trial last fall in a case* brought by Planned Parenthood against the CMP members who were involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s sale of aborted baby parts for profit .
Among the defendants was Troy Newman , President of Operation Rescue , who served as a CMP board member at the time of the investigation .
“ From the beginning , we have been prevented from discussing evidence incriminating to Planned Parenthood , due to a gag order issued by the court .
This allowed only Planned Parenthood ’ s false narrative to reach the public , ” said Troy Newman .
“ In fact , the truth about Planned Parenthood ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppressed for twenty years , since Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics , Inc. conducted the first investigation on this subject in 2000 .
Now , with the unsealing of this testimony and other evidence , the truth is finally being told.
” One particularly incriminating exchange was during the video testimony of Tram Nguyen , Abortion Center Administrator for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast ( PPGC ) .
She was asked by defense counsel about an e-mail stream between her and the Regional Medical and Surgical Services Director of PPGC .
Nguyen agreed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move forward with an attached contract that would have paid PPGC $ 750.00 per fetal liver and $ 1,600.00 per fetal liver/thymus pair .
Planned Parenthood has publicly lied to Congress and the media since 2015 , by telling them that they had “ rebuffed ” this contract .
And that was not the only contract Planned Parenthood lied about .
While publicly claiming that it only received reimbursements for hard costs , Planned Parenthood was actually raking in handsome profits at a number of its abortion facilities , as other recently release @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unsealed invoices showed detailed billing for aborted baby remains from nine abortion facilities operated by Planned Parenthood Mar Monte , a California affiliate totaling nearly $ 25,000 over just three months .
Of the nine facilities , the San Jose Planned Parenthood clinic was by far the most profitable , raking in $ 8,205 for a total of 157 specimens labeled “ POC ” or “ products of conception.
” In December 2017 , two California companies , DV Biologics and DaVinci Biosciences , admitted guilt and agreed to pay nearly $ 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Orange County District Attorney ’ s Office for illegally trafficking in aborted baby tissues and organs procured exclusively from Southern California Planned Parenthood abortion facilities .
The two companies were also ordered to shut down , but in a miscarriage of justice , Planned Parenthood escaped prosecution .
“ Why wasn ’ t this admission of guilt used against Planned Parenthood ?
Because its significant political power over corrupt politicians at nearly every level of government has shielded Planned Parenthood from consequences for decades , ” said Newman .
“ That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out.
” The CMP defendants lost the court case where the video testimony was presented and were ordered to pay a combined judgment totaling millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood — all for daring to expose their criminal conduct .
Newman ’ s attorneys with the American Center for Law and Justice are now petitioning for a new trial .
Meanwhile , criminal referrals issued by both the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives and the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2016 , opened an FBI investigation that has dragged on without resolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Grassley sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr on June 18 , 2019 , seeking an update on the progress of the investigation , but there was never any public response .
“ Mounting public evidence , which has been sealed until now , clearly shows that Planned Parenthood broke the law .
The truth can no longer be hidden or denied , ” said Newman .
“ I call on the Department of Justice to complete their investigation into Planned Parenthood ’ s illegal trafficking in aborted baby parts and lying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held accountable for their criminal conduct.
” In addition to testimony from Tram Nguyen , the newly released videos show excerpts of testimony from the following witnesses : • Dr. Deborah Nucatola , former Senior Director of Medical Services , Planned Parenthood Federation of America ( PPFA ) .
• Linda Tracy , Advanced Bioscience Resources , who provided third party testimony about Planned Parenthood contracts .
Those videos can be viewed here .

Sixteen unsealed excerpts show that Planned Parenthood was involved in obtaining and selling 'donations' of fetal tissue organs from women having abortions.
SAN FRANCISCO, May 28, 2020 (Operation Rescue) — Sixteen unsealed excerpts of sworn video testimony from Planned Parenthood executives were released Tuesday by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), which shows in their own words that Planned Parenthood was involved in obtaining “donations” of fetal tissue organs from women having abortions, only to illegally sell them to middle-man organ procurement companies for profit.
The video testimony was presented in court during a trial last fall in a case* brought by Planned Parenthood against the CMP members who were involved in the undercover investigation into Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby parts for profit. Among the defendants was Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue, who served as a CMP board member at the time of the investigation.
“From the beginning, we have been prevented from discussing evidence incriminating to Planned Parenthood, due to a gag order issued by the court. This allowed only Planned Parenthood’s false narrative to reach the public,” said Troy Newman. “In fact, the truth about Planned Parenthood’s illegal baby body parts trade has been suppressed for twenty years, since Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics, Inc. conducted the first investigation on this subject in 2000. Now, with the unsealing of this testimony and other evidence, the truth is finally being told.”
One particularly incriminating exchange was during the video testimony of Tram Nguyen, Abortion Center Administrator for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast (PPGC). She was asked by defense counsel about an e-mail stream between her and the Regional Medical and Surgical Services Director of PPGC.
Nguyen agreed in that e-mail exchange that she wanted to move forward with an attached contract that would have paid PPGC $750.00 per fetal liver and $1,600.00 per fetal liver/thymus pair.
Planned Parenthood has publicly lied to Congress and the media since 2015, by telling them that they had “rebuffed” this contract.
And that was not the only contract Planned Parenthood lied about. While publicly claiming that it only received reimbursements for hard costs, Planned Parenthood was actually raking in handsome profits at a number of its abortion facilities, as other recently release evidence proves.
Last month, newly unsealed invoices showed detailed billing for aborted baby remains from nine abortion facilities operated by Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, a California affiliate totaling nearly $25,000 over just three months. Of the nine facilities, the San Jose Planned Parenthood clinic was by far the most profitable, raking in $8,205 for a total of 157 specimens labeled “POC” or “products of conception.”
In December 2017, two California companies, DV Biologics and DaVinci Biosciences, admitted guilt and agreed to pay nearly $8 million to settle a civil case brought by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office for illegally trafficking in aborted baby tissues and organs procured exclusively from Southern California Planned Parenthood abortion facilities. The two companies were also ordered to shut down, but in a miscarriage of justice, Planned Parenthood escaped prosecution.
“Why wasn’t this admission of guilt used against Planned Parenthood? Because its significant political power over corrupt politicians at nearly every level of government has shielded Planned Parenthood from consequences for decades,” said Newman. “That political corruption must be exposed and rooted out.”
The CMP defendants lost the court case where the video testimony was presented and were ordered to pay a combined judgment totaling millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood — all for daring to expose their criminal conduct. Newman’s attorneys with the American Center for Law and Justice are now petitioning for a new trial.
Meanwhile, criminal referrals issued by both the House Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives and the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2016, opened an FBI investigation that has dragged on without resolution. Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Chuck Grassley sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr on June 18, 2019, seeking an update on the progress of the investigation, but there was never any public response.
“Mounting public evidence, which has been sealed until now, clearly shows that Planned Parenthood broke the law. The truth can no longer be hidden or denied,” said Newman. “I call on the Department of Justice to complete their investigation into Planned Parenthood’s illegal trafficking in aborted baby parts and lying to Congress. Planned Parenthood must be held accountable for their criminal conduct.”
In addition to testimony from Tram Nguyen, the newly released videos show excerpts of testimony from the following witnesses:
Dr. Deborah Nucatola , former Senior Director of Medical Services, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA).
, former Senior Director of Medical Services, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). Dr. Mary Gatter , former Medical Director’s Council President, PPFA.
, former Medical Director’s Council President, PPFA. Dr. Dorothy Furgerson , former Chief Medical Officer, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte.
, former Chief Medical Officer, Planned Parenthood Mar Monte. Linda Tracy, Advanced Bioscience Resources, who provided third party testimony about Planned Parenthood contracts.
Those videos can be viewed here.
Published with permission from Operation Rescue.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-29--Churches sue governor of Oregon for extended crackdown on religious services

EUGENE , Oregon , May 28 , 2020 ( Alliance Defending Freedom ) — Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing two Oregon churches filed suit in federal court Tuesday against Gov .
Katherine Brown to challenge a provision of her executive order that allows pastors to be jailed up to 30 days and fined $ 1,250 for going to church with 25 other people on a Sunday morning , when they can join those same people and more at a dine-in restaurant for Sunday lunch with no penalty .
The Josephine and Douglas county churches are planning to resume in-person worship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distancing and health and safety protocols , but the governor ’ s ban makes such services illegal and would subject the churches to possible criminal and civil penalties .
The lawsuit indicates that a motion for a temporary restraining order is forthcoming that asks the court to immediately halt enforcement of the provision .
As of May 24 , Josephine County had no active COVID-19 cases , and Douglas County had only two , with one person hospitalized and the other at home .
Brown ’ s order singles out cultural , civic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from holding gatherings of 25 or more people while allowing numerous secular gatherings that exceed that number , including shopping malls , retail stores , schools , ski resorts , and offices .
“ While responding to crises can be difficult , this case is not , ” said ADF Legal Counsel Caleb Dalton .
“ There is no legitimate justification for banning church services of 26 or more—with responsible social distancing and health and safety protocols—while allowing malls , gyms , restaurants , and retail establishments to fill to social-distancing capacity.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the churches are adopting plans to follow strict social distancing and health and safety protocols .
The churches have voluntarily implemented precautions including making hand sanitizer available to attendees ; encouraging the use of masks ; taking various measures to direct traffic flow ; requiring all ushers greeting or directing attendees to wear face coverings ; prohibiting any handouts to be passed to attendees during services ; directing attendees to sanctuary seating designed to provide six feet of separation between families and individuals ; and prohibiting snacks or coffee from being served @ @ @ @ @ @ @ punishment while allowing others to have greater freedom not only makes no logical sense , it ’ s clearly unconstitutional , just as others have warned the governor , ” said ADF Senior Counsel Ryan Tucker , director of the ADF Center for Christian Ministries .
“ Gov .
Brown has had plenty of opportunity to correct the obvious constitutional problem with issuing a church-specific ban and has chosen not to .
We support authorities ’ efforts to prioritize the public ’ s health and safety , but people of faith should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free to assemble.
” ADF attorneys filed Edgewater Christian Fellowship v. Brown in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon , Eugene Division .
Attorney Steve Elzinga is serving as co-counsel in the case for the churches .

EUGENE, Oregon, May 28, 2020 (Alliance Defending Freedom) — Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing two Oregon churches filed suit in federal court Tuesday against Gov. Katherine Brown to challenge a provision of her executive order that allows pastors to be jailed up to 30 days and fined $1,250 for going to church with 25 other people on a Sunday morning, when they can join those same people and more at a dine-in restaurant for Sunday lunch with no penalty.
The Josephine and Douglas county churches are planning to resume in-person worship services on May 31 with strict social distancing and health and safety protocols, but the governor’s ban makes such services illegal and would subject the churches to possible criminal and civil penalties. The lawsuit indicates that a motion for a temporary restraining order is forthcoming that asks the court to immediately halt enforcement of the provision.
As of May 24, Josephine County had no active COVID-19 cases, and Douglas County had only two, with one person hospitalized and the other at home. Brown’s order singles out cultural, civic, and faith-based gatherings, banning them from holding gatherings of 25 or more people while allowing numerous secular gatherings that exceed that number, including shopping malls, retail stores, schools, ski resorts, and offices.
“While responding to crises can be difficult, this case is not,” said ADF Legal Counsel Caleb Dalton. “There is no legitimate justification for banning church services of 26 or more—with responsible social distancing and health and safety protocols—while allowing malls, gyms, restaurants, and retail establishments to fill to social-distancing capacity.”
In preparation for resuming in-person worship services, the churches are adopting plans to follow strict social distancing and health and safety protocols. The churches have voluntarily implemented precautions including making hand sanitizer available to attendees; encouraging the use of masks; taking various measures to direct traffic flow; requiring all ushers greeting or directing attendees to wear face coverings; prohibiting any handouts to be passed to attendees during services; directing attendees to sanctuary seating designed to provide six feet of separation between families and individuals; and prohibiting snacks or coffee from being served.
“Singling out churches for special punishment while allowing others to have greater freedom not only makes no logical sense, it’s clearly unconstitutional, just as others have warned the governor,” said ADF Senior Counsel Ryan Tucker, director of the ADF Center for Christian Ministries. “Gov. Brown has had plenty of opportunity to correct the obvious constitutional problem with issuing a church-specific ban and has chosen not to. We support authorities’ efforts to prioritize the public’s health and safety, but people of faith should be free to assemble if other groups are free to assemble.”
ADF attorneys filed Edgewater Christian Fellowship v. Brown in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division. Attorney Steve Elzinga is serving as co-counsel in the case for the churches.
Published with permission from Alliance Defending Freedom.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-29--Accountability group demands govts stop keeping Canadians ‘in the dark’ on COVID-19 data

OTTAWA , Ontario , May 28 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A group of accountability experts is calling on governments across Canada to be more transparent with the public regarding information related to COVID-19 , saying citizens “ have been kept in the dark ” and whistleblowers should be protected .
The call to action came from the “ Canadian COVID-19 Accountability Group ” that May 22 released a white paper titled “ Protecting Whistleblowers and Increasing Transparency in Canada in the age of COVID-19.
” The white paper was made in response to the “ Constantine Cannon challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Constantine Cannon is an international law firm known for representing whistleblowers .
They put out a challenge as part of the Hackathon titled “ WHISTLEBLOWERS AS FIRST RESPONDERS : HOW TO STEM THE TIDE OF FRAUD AND CORRUPTION IN THE MAELSTROM OF COVID-19.
” The Canadian COVID-19 Accountability Group was one of 11 “ teams ” from across the globe taking part in the “ Constantine Cannon challenge.
” Ian Bron , an accountability advocate and former whistleblower based in Ottawa , coordinated the group ’ s challenge effort .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Canadians have a right to know what their governments are doing regarding the coronavirus .
`` Canadians are being kept in the dark about everything from how much money is being spent to fight the pandemic to basic data about where the disease is spreading , '' Bron said in the press release .
“ We know that when governments and corporations operate without public scrutiny , the potential for negligence , fraud , and misinformation dramatically increases .
And , during a pandemic , that puts lives and scarce dollars at risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is made up of former whistleblowers along with accountability experts with backgrounds in law , policing , and journalism .
According to their press release , the group includes “ representatives from organizations that have been at the forefront of fighting for whistleblower rights , ” such as members of Anti Corruption & Accountability Canada .
In their white paper , the group 's first proposed recommendation is to improve government transparency “ by making certain broad classes of records open by default.
” “ Such a change is consistent with the democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments are doing , and how their funds are being used , ” the group said in the white paper .
The group also is calling on governments in Canada to protect COVID-19 whistleblowers and fix the current whistleblower laws in Canada , which they say are “ broken.
” And they are asking that whistleblowers be financially compensated in some form to act as an incentive .
The group says this “ would help level the playing field between employees and employers and serve to encourage Canadians to come forward . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ education and awareness to “ inform Canadians of their rights with respect to access to government records and the disclosure of wrongdoing.
” Finally , the group is proposing the creation of both federal and provincial “ COVID-19 Ombudspersons ” who would “ provide advice and support for Canadians who witness pandemic-related wrongdoing within the public and private sector and need to report it.
” The group is recommending that ombudspersons be “ paired with powerful new open records laws to provide Canadians with documents and data that public bodies are routinely withholding.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ human trial testing of a coronavirus vaccine derived from fetal cells harvested from an aborted baby decades ago .
An Ontario doctor warned that the Canadian government ’ s new deal with China to produce a coronavirus vaccine is a “ dangerous endeavour ” and that “ the role of our governments is to build trust through transparency and accountability.
” The Alberta-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms ( JCCF ) has been vocal about government transparency due to restrictions imposed because of the coronavirus .
In April , the JCCF announced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government over the constitutionality of Bill 10 , the Alberta Public Health ( Emergency Powers ) Amendment Act , 2020 .
It filed the court challenge on May 1 .
Bill 10 gives Alberta government ministers complete authority to enforce public health orders put in place to combat the coronavirus without the legislature ’ s approval or public input .
The United Conservative government under Alberta Premier Jason Kenney rammed through Bill 10 on April 2 in less than 48 hours .

The group is pushing for more information on how money is spent and facts on the spread of the virus.
OTTAWA, Ontario, May 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A group of accountability experts is calling on governments across Canada to be more transparent with the public regarding information related to COVID-19, saying citizens “have been kept in the dark” and whistleblowers should be protected.
The call to action came from the “Canadian COVID-19 Accountability Group” that May 22 released a white paper titled “Protecting Whistleblowers and Increasing Transparency in Canada in the age of COVID-19.”
The white paper was made in response to the “Constantine Cannon challenge for the Financial Times Global Legal Hackathon.”
Constantine Cannon is an international law firm known for representing whistleblowers. They put out a challenge as part of the Hackathon titled “WHISTLEBLOWERS AS FIRST RESPONDERS: HOW TO STEM THE TIDE OF FRAUD AND CORRUPTION IN THE MAELSTROM OF COVID-19.”
The Canadian COVID-19 Accountability Group was one of 11 “teams” from across the globe taking part in the “Constantine Cannon challenge.”
Ian Bron, an accountability advocate and former whistleblower based in Ottawa, coordinated the group’s challenge effort. In a May 25 press release, he said Canadians have a right to know what their governments are doing regarding the coronavirus.
“Canadians are being kept in the dark about everything from how much money is being spent to fight the pandemic to basic data about where the disease is spreading,” Bron said in the press release.
“We know that when governments and corporations operate without public scrutiny, the potential for negligence, fraud, and misinformation dramatically increases. And, during a pandemic, that puts lives and scarce dollars at risk.”
The Canadian COVID-19 Accountability Group is made up of former whistleblowers along with accountability experts with backgrounds in law, policing, and journalism.
According to their press release, the group includes “representatives from organizations that have been at the forefront of fighting for whistleblower rights,” such as members of Anti Corruption & Accountability Canada.
In their white paper, the group's first proposed recommendation is to improve government transparency “by making certain broad classes of records open by default.”
“Such a change is consistent with the democratic right of Canadians to know what their governments are doing, and how their funds are being used,” the group said in the white paper.
The group also is calling on governments in Canada to protect COVID-19 whistleblowers and fix the current whistleblower laws in Canada, which they say are “broken.”
And they are asking that whistleblowers be financially compensated in some form to act as an incentive.
The group says this “would help level the playing field between employees and employers and serve to encourage Canadians to come forward.”
The group's fourth recommendation revolves around education and awareness to “inform Canadians of their rights with respect to access to government records and the disclosure of wrongdoing.”
Finally, the group is proposing the creation of both federal and provincial “COVID-19 Ombudspersons” who would “provide advice and support for Canadians who witness pandemic-related wrongdoing within the public and private sector and need to report it.”
The group is recommending that ombudspersons be “paired with powerful new open records laws to provide Canadians with documents and data that public bodies are routinely withholding.”
In May, Health Canada approved human trial testing of a coronavirus vaccine derived from fetal cells harvested from an aborted baby decades ago.
An Ontario doctor warned that the Canadian government’s new deal with China to produce a coronavirus vaccine is a “dangerous endeavour” and that “the role of our governments is to build trust through transparency and accountability.”
The Alberta-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has been vocal about government transparency due to restrictions imposed because of the coronavirus.
In April, the JCCF announced that it was legally challenging the Alberta provincial government over the constitutionality of Bill 10, the Alberta Public Health (Emergency Powers) Amendment Act, 2020. It filed the court challenge on May 1.
Bill 10 gives Alberta government ministers complete authority to enforce public health orders put in place to combat the coronavirus without the legislature’s approval or public input. The United Conservative government under Alberta Premier Jason Kenney rammed through Bill 10 on April 2 in less than 48 hours.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-29--Ontario nursing home report shows ‘heartbreaking,’ ‘horrific’ abuse of elderly, vulnerable

ONTARIO , May 28 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A Canadian Armed Forces ( CAF ) report alleging serious health and safety issues regarding the care of the elderly in five Ontario nursing homes casts a stark light on how society “ dehumanizes ” people , says the head of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition .
The Ontario provincial government publicly released a report by the 4th Canadian Division Joint Task Force to the public on Tuesday regarding the five Ontario long-term care homes .
The detailed report brought to light the alleged deplorable living conditions in the Ontario homes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insect infestations , spoiled food , and a lack of proper safety precautions .
In April , CAF personnel were brought in to help manage some of the worst affected long-term care homes in Ontario and Quebec because of the coronavirus .
This came after the federal government approved a request from their provincial governments for help .
The military report alleges how some residents were left in soiled diapers for extended periods .
Others were left crying for help with no answer from “ 30 minutes up to two hours.
” Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , leading to audible choking or aspiration.
” In a press conference Tuesday , premier of Ontario Doug Ford said he was “ shocked ” by the findings , adding that his government will launch an investigation .
He also asked the CAF to extend their mission for another 30 days .
“ The reports they provided us were heartbreaking , they were horrific , it ’ s shocking that this can happen here in Canada .
It ’ s gut-wrenching , ” said Ford .
“ Reading those reports was the hardest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , knowing that so much more needs to be done … so please pray for these residents , please pray for their families.
” Pro-life Conservative Party of Canada leadership candidate Dr. Leslyn Lewis voiced her “ disgust ” regarding the Ontario long-term care homes .
In a statement posted on her web page yesterday , she said that if elected leader , she would stop the expansion of “ new categories for Medically Assisted Death.
” “ Once death is a viable option for ‘ care ’ , should we be that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fallen so far ?
” wrote Lewis .
“ As Canadians , we must hold ourselves to a higher standard .
Our parents and grandparents built this great nation and we owe it to them to treasure them , to show them the respect they deserve.
” “ I vow to lead a wholesale change in the culture towards the elderly , and the sick .
I will stop the expansion of new categories for Medically Assisted Death.
” Alex Schadenberg , executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition said in a blog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows how Canada needs a culture that treats the elderly and infirm with the respect and dignity they deserve .
“ We need a caring culture .
A culture that does not institutionalize elderly , infirm or people with disabilities , but rather creates compassionate community care , ” said Schadenberg .
“ The horrific incidents outlined in the report are based on an attitude of disrespect and a culture that dehumanizes people who need care .
Many of the victims are viewed by society as less than human because they have cognitive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of the “ dehumanizing ” and “ heartbreaking ” conditions alleged in the military report .
“ Doctors and nurse practitioners , who kill people by euthanasia make decisions based on societal attitudes towards living with physical and psychological needs , ” said Schadenberg .
In his second conclusion , Schadenberg said the concept “ of ‘ freedom of choice ’ does not apply to conditions and attitudes that lead someone to believe that people living with certain conditions are better off dead.
” “ Subtle and overt social pressures creates a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ die ’ to an expectation to die , ” he added .
Lastly , Schadenberg said , “ Some people have asked to die by euthanasia to avoid living in a nursing home .
This report may lead to a ‘ clean-up ’ of nursing , it will also lead to more euthanasia deaths.
” The Ontario government announced Wednesday that it will take over the management of the five care homes detailed in the military report .
Four out of the five are privately owned .
A public inquiry was held between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the security and safety standards of Ontario ’ s long-term care homes .
The report found many instances of “ vulnerabilities.
” In February , the Ontario minister of long-term care , Dr. Merrilee Fullerton , said the Ontario government was “ taking action ” on the recommendations that came about from the public inquiry .
In his homily as the celebrant for the National Mass for Life on May 14 , Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa condemned euthanasia and assisted suicide as a “ solution.
” He said euthanasia and assisted suicide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ infection ” in Canada of the continued devaluation of human life .
Schadenberg also warned on day three of the 2020 Virtual March for Life that Canada is on track to become “ worst ” assisted suicide jurisdiction in the world .
Euthanasia was legalized in Canada by Justin Trudeau ’ s Liberal Party in 2016 with Bill C-14 .
In February 2019 , Bill C-7 was introduced , which further expanded on Bill C-14 .
Bill C-7 came about as Trudeau ’ s acceptance to a Quebec court decision last September @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a person ’ s “ natural death be reasonably foreseeable ” to qualify for death by lethal injection .
According to Ontario government figures , there are 626 long-term care homes in Ontario , and 150 of them are “ experiencing an outbreak.
” The coronavirus death toll in Ontario , with a population of about 14.5 million , stands at 2,155 .
According to Ontario ’ s Ministry of Long-Term Care , 1,587 deaths have been reported in long-term care and retirement homes across the province .

Malnourished and neglected residents, insect infestations, spoiled food, and a lack of proper safety precautions were included among the conditions alleged in the Canadian Armed Forces report.
ONTARIO, May 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) report alleging serious health and safety issues regarding the care of the elderly in five Ontario nursing homes casts a stark light on how society “dehumanizes” people, says the head of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
The Ontario provincial government publicly released a report by the 4th Canadian Division Joint Task Force to the public on Tuesday regarding the five Ontario long-term care homes.
The detailed report brought to light the alleged deplorable living conditions in the Ontario homes, including malnourished and neglected residents, insect infestations, spoiled food, and a lack of proper safety precautions.
In April, CAF personnel were brought in to help manage some of the worst affected long-term care homes in Ontario and Quebec because of the coronavirus. This came after the federal government approved a request from their provincial governments for help.
The military report alleges how some residents were left in soiled diapers for extended periods. Others were left crying for help with no answer from “30 minutes up to two hours.” Some residents “were fed and hydrated forcefully, leading to audible choking or aspiration.”
In a press conference Tuesday, premier of Ontario Doug Ford said he was “shocked” by the findings, adding that his government will launch an investigation. He also asked the CAF to extend their mission for another 30 days.
“The reports they provided us were heartbreaking, they were horrific, it’s shocking that this can happen here in Canada. It’s gut-wrenching,” said Ford.
“Reading those reports was the hardest thing I’ve done as premier, knowing that so much more needs to be done … so please pray for these residents, please pray for their families.”
Pro-life Conservative Party of Canada leadership candidate Dr. Leslyn Lewis voiced her “disgust” regarding the Ontario long-term care homes. In a statement posted on her web page yesterday, she said that if elected leader, she would stop the expansion of “new categories for Medically Assisted Death.”
“Once death is a viable option for ‘care’, should we be that surprised that the standard of care has fallen so far?” wrote Lewis. “As Canadians, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. Our parents and grandparents built this great nation and we owe it to them to treasure them, to show them the respect they deserve.”
“I vow to lead a wholesale change in the culture towards the elderly, and the sick. I will stop the expansion of new categories for Medically Assisted Death.”
Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition said in a blog post about the report Wednesday that it shows how Canada needs a culture that treats the elderly and infirm with the respect and dignity they deserve.
“We need a caring culture. A culture that does not institutionalize elderly, infirm or people with disabilities, but rather creates compassionate community care,” said Schadenberg.
“The horrific incidents outlined in the report are based on an attitude of disrespect and a culture that dehumanizes people who need care. Many of the victims are viewed by society as less than human because they have cognitive issues.”
Schadenberg came to three conclusions because of the “dehumanizing” and “heartbreaking” conditions alleged in the military report.
“Doctors and nurse practitioners, who kill people by euthanasia make decisions based on societal attitudes towards living with physical and psychological needs,” said Schadenberg.
In his second conclusion, Schadenberg said the concept “of ‘freedom of choice’ does not apply to conditions and attitudes that lead someone to believe that people living with certain conditions are better off dead.”
“Subtle and overt social pressures creates a cultural shift from a ‘choice to die’ to an expectation to die,” he added.
Lastly, Schadenberg said, “Some people have asked to die by euthanasia to avoid living in a nursing home. This report may lead to a ‘clean-up’ of nursing, it will also lead to more euthanasia deaths.”
The Ontario government announced Wednesday that it will take over the management of the five care homes detailed in the military report. Four out of the five are privately owned.
A public inquiry was held between 2017 and 2018, which looked into the security and safety standards of Ontario’s long-term care homes. The report found many instances of “vulnerabilities.”
In February, the Ontario minister of long-term care, Dr. Merrilee Fullerton, said the Ontario government was “taking action” on the recommendations that came about from the public inquiry.
In his homily as the celebrant for the National Mass for Life on May 14, Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa condemned euthanasia and assisted suicide as a “solution.” He said euthanasia and assisted suicide will lead to a different kind of “infection” in Canada of the continued devaluation of human life.
Schadenberg also warned on day three of the 2020 Virtual March for Life that Canada is on track to become “worst” assisted suicide jurisdiction in the world.
Euthanasia was legalized in Canada by Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party in 2016 with Bill C-14. In February 2019, Bill C-7 was introduced, which further expanded on Bill C-14.
Bill C-7 came about as Trudeau’s acceptance to a Quebec court decision last September. That ruling struck down the requirement that a person’s “natural death be reasonably foreseeable” to qualify for death by lethal injection.
According to Ontario government figures, there are 626 long-term care homes in Ontario, and 150 of them are “experiencing an outbreak.”
The coronavirus death toll in Ontario, with a population of about 14.5 million, stands at 2,155. According to Ontario’s Ministry of Long-Term Care, 1,587 deaths have been reported in long-term care and retirement homes across the province.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-28--Activists push for easier access to abortion pill in lawsuit

BALTIMORE , Maryland , May 28 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – A lawsuit filed Wednesday by pro-abortion activists seeks to remove restrictions on access to the abortion pill .
On behalf of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other groups , the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) filed the complaint against the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) and the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland .
The plaintiffs used the fact that the coronavirus pandemic led to “ a massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical needs without unnecessary travel and in-person interactions that facilitate viral spread ” to demand easier access to the abortion pill .
According to the abortion activists , “ there is a striking exception ” to widespread telemedicine .
“ Defendants continue to subject mifepristone ( brand name Mifeprex ) , one of two FDA-approved prescription drugs used in combination to end an early pregnancy or to manage a miscarriage , to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy ( ‘ REMS ’ ) that mandates unnecessary travel and personal interactions , jeopardizing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the lawsuit stated .
Thus , women who want to have an abortion are required “ to travel to their clinician ’ s hospital , clinic , or medical office to pick up the pill.
” The lawsuit echoed claims made in a letter signed by 21 state attorneys general who wrote to FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn on March 30 “ to request that you increase access to reproductive health care , including safe and legal abortion , during this pandemic.
” “ ( W ) e urge you to waive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ REMS ) , or use FDA enforcement discretion , to allow certified prescribers to use telehealth for Mifepristone , the medication abortion prescription drug , ” the attorneys general , including those of California and New York , continued .
On April 14 , 159 members of Congress responded by sending a letter to Hahn , asking him “ to continue to robustly enforce ” REMS for the abortion pill .
“ The FDA has approved chemical abortion for use up to 10 weeks ’ gestation , but due to the attendant risks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only a certified prescriber dispense the drugs after confirming the gestational age , ruling out ectopic pregnancy , and that the woman herself sign and retain a copy of the prescribers agreement , ” the pro-life legislators pointed out .
The term “ ectopic pregnancy ” refers to an embryo attaching outside the uterus .
The letter added , “ The involvement of a physician or other certified prescriber , who knows the state of a woman ’ s pregnancy and health , is critical for patient safety.
” On May 4 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seize websites of abortionists who are illegally offering abortion pills online in order “ to protect women from the distributers of abortion-inducing drugs who place lives at risk by circumventing your agency ’ s regulatory safeguards.
” The letter was signed , among others , by Marjorie Dannenfelser , president of the Susan B. Anthony List ; Kristan Hawkins , president of Students for Life of America ; Lila Rose , president of Live Action ; Father Frank Pavone , national director of Priests for Life ; and Jeanne Mancini , who is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Life in the nation ’ s capital .
The pro-life leaders summarized how abortion pills are used .
“ Mifeprex ( or its recently-approved generic ) , used in combination with misoprostol , is the only FDA-approved regimen for drug-induced abortion .
Mifeprex is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy ( REMS ) , which , as stated in the warning letters , ‘ is intended to mitigate the risk of serious complications associated with Mifeprex.
’ Further , ‘ ( c ) onsistent with the REMS , Mifeprex is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internet.
” The members of Congress , in their letter , listed several dangers associated with medical abortions .
Research proves , they pointed out , “ that as many as five to seven percent of women who take abortion drugs will require follow-up surgery , and three percent could end up in the emergency room.
” “ Self-managed abortions from home are especially dangerous ; in fact , half of abortion providers do not consider them safe , ” they explained .
Unbeknown to many , chemical abortions are actually reversible for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a woman has taken the first abortion pill , there is still a chance her baby can be saved .
The Charlotte Lozier Institute explaind the abortion pill reversal procedure , which is simple and safe , in an infographic .
The medical abortion is committed by taking mifepristone , followed by misoprostol 24 to 72 hours later .
“ Mifepristone is a progesterone receptor blocker which causes separation of the placenta from the uterus which leads to the death of the embryo or fetus .
The misoprostol causes the uterus to contract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” To reverse the medical abortion , women take progesterone , orally or as an injection , “ as soon as possible after taking the mifepristone but before taking the misoprostol.
” An entire website is dedicated to helping women with an abortion pill reversal .

Women who want abortions have been inconvenienced by restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic, the suit asserts.
BALTIMORE, Maryland, May 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – A lawsuit filed Wednesday by pro-abortion activists seeks to remove restrictions on access to the abortion pill.
On behalf of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other groups, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the complaint against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
The plaintiffs used the fact that the coronavirus pandemic led to “a massive, nationwide effort to meet patients’ medical needs without unnecessary travel and in-person interactions that facilitate viral spread” to demand easier access to the abortion pill.
According to the abortion activists, “there is a striking exception” to widespread telemedicine.
“Defendants continue to subject mifepristone (brand name Mifeprex), one of two FDA-approved prescription drugs used in combination to end an early pregnancy or to manage a miscarriage, to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (‘REMS’) that mandates unnecessary travel and personal interactions, jeopardizing the health and lives of patients and clinicians,” the lawsuit stated.
Thus, women who want to have an abortion are required “to travel to their clinician’s hospital, clinic, or medical office to pick up the pill.”
The lawsuit echoed claims made in a letter signed by 21 state attorneys general who wrote to FDA commissioner Stephen Hahn on March 30 “to request that you increase access to reproductive health care, including safe and legal abortion, during this pandemic.”
“(W)e urge you to waive its Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), or use FDA enforcement discretion, to allow certified prescribers to use telehealth for Mifepristone, the medication abortion prescription drug,” the attorneys general, including those of California and New York, continued.
On April 14, 159 members of Congress responded by sending a letter to Hahn, asking him “to continue to robustly enforce” REMS for the abortion pill.
“The FDA has approved chemical abortion for use up to 10 weeks’ gestation, but due to the attendant risks to the mother, FDA requires that only a certified prescriber dispense the drugs after confirming the gestational age, ruling out ectopic pregnancy, and that the woman herself sign and retain a copy of the prescribers agreement,” the pro-life legislators pointed out.
The term “ectopic pregnancy” refers to an embryo attaching outside the uterus.
The letter added, “The involvement of a physician or other certified prescriber, who knows the state of a woman’s pregnancy and health, is critical for patient safety.”
On May 4, pro-life leaders called on the FDA to seize websites of abortionists who are illegally offering abortion pills online in order “to protect women from the distributers of abortion-inducing drugs who place lives at risk by circumventing your agency’s regulatory safeguards.”
The letter was signed, among others, by Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List; Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America; Lila Rose, president of Live Action; Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life; and Jeanne Mancini, who is the organizer of the yearly March for Life in the nation’s capital.
The pro-life leaders summarized how abortion pills are used.
“Mifeprex (or its recently-approved generic), used in combination with misoprostol, is the only FDA-approved regimen for drug-induced abortion. Mifeprex is subject to a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), which, as stated in the warning letters, ‘is intended to mitigate the risk of serious complications associated with Mifeprex.’ Further, ‘(c)onsistent with the REMS, Mifeprex is not sold through retail pharmacies or over the internet.”
The members of Congress, in their letter, listed several dangers associated with medical abortions.
Research proves, they pointed out, “that as many as five to seven percent of women who take abortion drugs will require follow-up surgery, and three percent could end up in the emergency room.”
“Self-managed abortions from home are especially dangerous; in fact, half of abortion providers do not consider them safe,” they explained.
Unbeknown to many, chemical abortions are actually reversible for a short period of time.
Once a woman has taken the first abortion pill, there is still a chance her baby can be saved. The Charlotte Lozier Institute explaind the abortion pill reversal procedure, which is simple and safe, in an infographic.
The medical abortion is committed by taking mifepristone, followed by misoprostol 24 to 72 hours later. “Mifepristone is a progesterone receptor blocker which causes separation of the placenta from the uterus which leads to the death of the embryo or fetus. The misoprostol causes the uterus to contract and expel the remains of the child.”
To reverse the medical abortion, women take progesterone, orally or as an injection, “as soon as possible after taking the mifepristone but before taking the misoprostol.”
An entire website is dedicated to helping women with an abortion pill reversal.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-05-28--Trump signs executive order to combat social media censorship

TELL VIMEO : Stop silencing conservatives and Christians !
Sign the petition here .
WASHINGTON , D.C. , May 28 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — President Donald Trump signed an executive order today suggesting the federal government will begin to interpret much more narrowly the legal immunities social media companies currently enjoy .
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects platforms like Twitter and Facebook from being sued for what their users post on the sites .
Whereas news agencies and other publishers can face lawsuits for publishing libelous claims , social media platforms are currently exempt from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as platforms rather than publishers .
Trump ’ s executive order ( see full text below ) says “ the scope of that immunity should be clarified : the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech , but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
” “ The growth of online platforms in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology , ” Trump wrote .
“ Today , many Americans follow the news , stay in touch with friends and family , and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms .
As a result , these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
” Terry Schilling , executive director of the American Principles Project , agreed that “ Big Tech platforms ” have “ become the digital replacement to the physical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he said , “ and given the political and cultural influence that these multinational corporations wield , it is of utmost importance to defend free speech values and to protect the essence of democracy itself by encouraging the platforms to observe First Amendment principles and allow the free-flowing exchange of ideas.
” “ Platforms have speech rights , too .
Twitter , for example , is well within its rights to censor or otherwise restrict a user ’ s speech — even the President of the United States , ” Schilling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to engage in that censorship , they should not be receiving a special subsidy from the federal government in the form of immunity from civil liability .
Those advocating for a change to Section 230 want to establish a quid pro quo — if the American people are going to insulate these multinational corporations from legal liability , they need to at least provide a public square in return.
” The executive order continues , “ Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guise of promoting open forums for debate , and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.
” The order also directs the heads of federal agencies to determine how much taxpayer money their agencies spend advertising and contracting with tech giants .
The Department of Justice will then “ review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report ” and “ assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or other bad practices.
” Trump has criticized anti-conservative bias on social media several times this week , after Twitter flagged a post of his with a “ get the facts ” label .
Trump ’ s tweet had warned of the likelihood of voting fraud through mail-in ballots , but the label added by Twitter linked to text and articles in the liberal media which contradicted his claims .
Trump has accused Twitter of “ interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election ” and social media platforms generally of silencing conservative voices .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration could “ strongly regulate , or close them down.
” Florida congressman Matt Gaetz announced on his regular podcast yesterday that he is working on legislation that would remove Section 230 ’ s legal immunity that social media companies currently enjoy , “ I am currently working with my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to craft legislation to say that if you ’ re going to opine as to the truth or falsity of that which is put on your platform , for the sake of its viewers , you don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 230 .
You are not a platform .
You are doing something else , you are editorializing , ” Gaetz said .
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has responded to the controversy surrounding Twitter ’ s fact-checking of Trump by saying he believes that Facebook and other private platform companies “ shouldn ’ t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.
” Zuckerberg told Fox News that Facebook has a different policy on fact-checking from Twitter ’ s .
Last week , Facebook punished conservative education organization PragerU with “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ repeated sharing of false news ” and “ misinformation ” when PragerU released a video disputing environmentalists ’ claims about the decline of polar bear populations .
The social media giant suppressed a quotation from St. Augustine last year , and in 2018 , a Facebook spokeswoman admitted to suppressing and demonetizing posts deemed “ false ” by “ our third-party fact-checkers.
” Niamh Uí Bhriain of Life Institute in Ireland told LifeSiteNews that Google and Facebook had both openly and covertly interfered in the Irish 2018 abortion referendum , causing significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Google openly banned online advertising , even on YouTube , when it was widely understood that this would only really damage the pro-life side in the referendum , since the establishment media had been part of the abortion campaign for years .
It meant that crucially important messages went unheard by voters , ” Niamh explained .
“ After the vote it emerged that Google had actually also operated a blacklist of terms such as 'abortion and Down Syndrome ' and 'abortion is wrong ' - to manipulate searches so that Google would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those search terms , ” she said .
“ Facebook has a long history of refusing adverts and limiting the reach of pro-life pages - but it also employs so-called 'fact checkers ' to adjudicate on pro-life messages , even when those fact-checkers have shown themselves to be absolutely biased , ” she continued .
“ In Ireland , Facebook has employed The Journal to check facts , even though that platform went so far as to change its own previous findings in the abortion referendum to suit the Yes campaign .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter were called to account – these Big Tech companies have a monopoly on social media communications and are using it to censor conservatives and pro-life messages.
” “ While some may quibble with the details of the executive order , especially with its deference to federal agencies , the main takeaway is that this will set an important precedent for future policymaking : If market-dominant platforms aren ’ t interested in behaving like a public square with regard to content moderation policies , they shouldn ’ t receive any sort of special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” concluded Schilling .
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America , it is hereby ordered as follows : .
.
Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy .
Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution .
The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people .
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression , we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet .
This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic .
When large , powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree , they exercise a dangerous power .
They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards , and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators .
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology .
Today , many Americans follow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and family , and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms .
As a result , these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square .
Twitter , Facebook , Instagram , and YouTube wield immense , if not unprecedented , power to shape the interpretation of public events ; to censor , delete , or disappear information ; and to control what people see or do not see .
As President , I have made clear my commitment to free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities , our town halls , and our homes .
It is essential to sustaining our democracy .
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse .
Tens of thousands of Americans have reported , among other troubling behaviors , online platforms “ flagging ” content as inappropriate , even though it does not violate any stated terms of service ; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accounts with no warning , no rationale , and no recourse .
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias .
As has been reported , Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician ’ s tweet .
As recently as last week , Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax , and Twitter did not flag those tweets .
Unsurprisingly , its officer in charge of so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political bias in his own tweets .
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent , irrational , and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans ’ speech here at home , several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China .
One United States company , for example , created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “ human rights , ” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party , and tracked users @ @ @ @ @ @ @ established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military .
Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China ’ s mass imprisonment of religious minorities , thereby enabling these abuses of human rights .
They have also amplified China ’ s propaganda abroad , including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic , and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong .
As a Nation , we must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice .
We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms , and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression .
.
.
.
( a ) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet .
Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230 ( c @ @ @ @ @ @ @ section 230 ( c ) ) .
47 U.S.C .
230 ( c ) .
It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified : the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech , but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints .
Section 230 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court decisions holding that , if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others , it would thereby become a “ publisher ” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation .
As the title of section 230 ( c ) makes clear , the provision provides limited liability “ protection ” to a provider of an interactive computer service ( such as an online platform ) that engages in “ ‘ Good Samaritan ’ blocking ” of harmful content .
In particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material .
The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “ forum for a true diversity of political discourse.
” 47 U.S.C .
230 ( a ) ( 3 ) .
The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind .
In particular , subparagraph ( c ) ( 2 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “ on account of ” its decision in “ good faith ” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “ obscene , lewd , lascivious , filthy , excessively violent , harassing or otherwise objectionable.
” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that , to the maximum extent permissible under the law , this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions ( often contrary to their stated terms of service ) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree .
Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate , and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike .
When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criteria of subparagraph ( c ) ( 2 ) ( A ) , it is engaged in editorial conduct .
It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph ( c ) ( 2 ) ( A ) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider .
( b ) To advance the policy described in subsection ( a ) of this section , all executive departments and agencies should ensure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard .
In addition , within 60 days of the date of this order , the Secretary of Commerce ( Secretary ) , in consultation with the Attorney General , and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration ( NTIA ) , shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify : ( i ) the interaction between subparagraphs ( c ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 2 ) of section 230 , in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph ( c ) ( 2 ) ( A ) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph ( c ) ( 1 ) , which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider ’ s responsibility for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “ taken in good faith ” within the meaning of subparagraph ( c ) ( 2 ) ( A ) of section 230 , particularly whether actions can be “ taken in good faith ” if they are : ( A ) deceptive , pretextual , or inconsistent with a provider ’ s terms of service ; or ( B ) taken after failing to provide adequate notice , reasoned explanation , or a meaningful opportunity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection ( a ) of this section .
.
.
.
( a ) The head of each executive department and agency ( agency ) shall review its agency ’ s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms .
Such review shall include the amount of money spent , the online platforms that receive Federal dollars , and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars .
( b ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this order , the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget .
( c ) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection ( b ) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination , deception to consumers , or other bad practices .
.
.
Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices .
( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States that large online platforms , such as Twitter and Facebook , as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today , should not restrict protected speech .
The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites , as the modern public square , “ can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.
” Packingham v. North Carolina , 137 S. Ct. 1730 , 1737 ( 2017 ) .
Communication through these channels has become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including to petition elected leaders .
These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate .
Cf .
PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins , 447 U.S. 74 , 85-89 ( 1980 ) .
( b ) In May of 2019 , the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship .
In just weeks , the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) .
( c ) The FTC shall consider taking action , as appropriate and consistent with applicable law , to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce , pursuant to section 45 of title 15 , United States Code .
Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities ’ public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate , including the social media platform Twitter , the FTC shall also , consistent with its legal authority , consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4 ( a ) of this order .
The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available , consistent with applicable law .
.
.
State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws .
( a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices .
The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices .
The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation , as appropriate and consistent with applicable law .
( b ) Complaints described in section 4 ( b ) of this order will be shared with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following : ( i ) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow , or their interactions with other users ; ( ii ) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint ; ( iii ) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior , when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments ; ( iv ) reliance on third-party entities , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with indicia of bias to review content ; and ( v ) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated .
.
.
.
The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order .
.
.
.
For purposes of this order , the term “ online platform ” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engine .
.
.
.
( a ) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect : ( i ) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency , or the head thereof ; or ( ii ) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary , administrative , or legislative proposals .
( b ) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations .
( c ) This order is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , create any right or benefit , substantive or procedural , enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States , its departments , agencies , or entities , its officers , employees , or agents , or any other person .

The executive order also suggests the U.S. government may stop giving business to social media companies using taxpayer money.
TELL VIMEO: Stop silencing conservatives and Christians! Sign the petition here.
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 28, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — President Donald Trump signed an executive order today suggesting the federal government will begin to interpret much more narrowly the legal immunities social media companies currently enjoy.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects platforms like Twitter and Facebook from being sued for what their users post on the sites.
Whereas news agencies and other publishers can face lawsuits for publishing libelous claims, social media platforms are currently exempt from such action because the law classifies them as platforms rather than publishers.
Trump’s executive order (see full text below) says “the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.”
“The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology,” Trump wrote. “Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.”
Terry Schilling, executive director of the American Principles Project, agreed that “Big Tech platforms” have “become the digital replacement to the physical public square.”
“Given that reality,” he said, “and given the political and cultural influence that these multinational corporations wield, it is of utmost importance to defend free speech values and to protect the essence of democracy itself by encouraging the platforms to observe First Amendment principles and allow the free-flowing exchange of ideas.”
“Platforms have speech rights, too. Twitter, for example, is well within its rights to censor or otherwise restrict a user’s speech — even the President of the United States,” Schilling explained.
“But if Twitter wants to engage in that censorship, they should not be receiving a special subsidy from the federal government in the form of immunity from civil liability. Those advocating for a change to Section 230 want to establish a quid pro quo — if the American people are going to insulate these multinational corporations from legal liability, they need to at least provide a public square in return.”
The executive order continues, “Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.”
The order also directs the heads of federal agencies to determine how much taxpayer money their agencies spend advertising and contracting with tech giants.
The Department of Justice will then “review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report” and “assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.”
Trump has criticized anti-conservative bias on social media several times this week, after Twitter flagged a post of his with a “get the facts” label. Trump’s tweet had warned of the likelihood of voting fraud through mail-in ballots, but the label added by Twitter linked to text and articles in the liberal media which contradicted his claims.
Trump has accused Twitter of “interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election” and social media platforms generally of silencing conservative voices. He warned social media giants that his administration could “strongly regulate, or close them down.”
….Twitter is completely stifling FREE SPEECH, and I, as President, will not allow it to happen! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 26, 2020
….happen again. Just like we can’t let large scale Mail-In Ballots take root in our Country. It would be a free for all on cheating, forgery and the theft of Ballots. Whoever cheated the most would win. Likewise, Social Media. Clean up your act, NOW!!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2020
Twitter has now shown that everything we have been saying about them (and their other compatriots) is correct. Big action to follow! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 27, 2020
Big Tech is doing everything in their very considerable power to CENSOR in advance of the 2020 Election. If that happens, we no longer have our freedom. I will never let it happen! They tried hard in 2016, and lost. Now they are going absolutely CRAZY. Stay Tuned!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 28, 2020
Florida congressman Matt Gaetz announced on his regular podcast yesterday that he is working on legislation that would remove Section 230’s legal immunity that social media companies currently enjoy,
“I am currently working with my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to craft legislation to say that if you’re going to opine as to the truth or falsity of that which is put on your platform, for the sake of its viewers, you don’t get the protection of Section 230. You are not a platform. You are doing something else, you are editorializing,” Gaetz said.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has responded to the controversy surrounding Twitter’s fact-checking of Trump by saying he believes that Facebook and other private platform companies “shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online.” Zuckerberg told Fox News that Facebook has a different policy on fact-checking from Twitter’s.
Last week, Facebook punished conservative education organization PragerU with “reduced distribution and other restrictions” for “repeated sharing of false news” and “misinformation” when PragerU released a video disputing environmentalists’ claims about the decline of polar bear populations. The social media giant suppressed a quotation from St. Augustine last year, and in 2018, a Facebook spokeswoman admitted to suppressing and demonetizing posts deemed “false” by “our third-party fact-checkers.”
Niamh Uí Bhriain of Life Institute in Ireland told LifeSiteNews that Google and Facebook had both openly and covertly interfered in the Irish 2018 abortion referendum, causing significant damage to the pro-life message.
“Google openly banned online advertising, even on YouTube, when it was widely understood that this would only really damage the pro-life side in the referendum, since the establishment media had been part of the abortion campaign for years. It meant that crucially important messages went unheard by voters,” Niamh explained.
“After the vote it emerged that Google had actually also operated a blacklist of terms such as 'abortion and Down Syndrome' and 'abortion is wrong' – to manipulate searches so that Google would decide what voters saw when they used those search terms,” she said.
“Facebook has a long history of refusing adverts and limiting the reach of pro-life pages – but it also employs so-called 'fact checkers' to adjudicate on pro-life messages, even when those fact-checkers have shown themselves to be absolutely biased,” she continued.
“In Ireland, Facebook has employed The Journal to check facts, even though that platform went so far as to change its own previous findings in the abortion referendum to suit the Yes campaign. It's high time Google, Facebook and Twitter were called to account – these Big Tech companies have a monopoly on social media communications and are using it to censor conservatives and pro-life messages.”
“While some may quibble with the details of the executive order, especially with its deference to federal agencies, the main takeaway is that this will set an important precedent for future policymaking: If market-dominant platforms aren’t interested in behaving like a public square with regard to content moderation policies, they shouldn’t receive any sort of special deal from the federal government — period,” concluded Schilling.
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1 . Policy . Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Sec . 2 . Protections Against Online Censorship . (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.
Sec . 3 . Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech . (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.
Sec . 4 . Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices . (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).
(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.
(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.
Sec . 5 . State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws . (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:
(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;
(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;
(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
Sec . 6 . Legislation . The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Sec . 7 . Definition . For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.
Sec . 8 . General Provisions . (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
Share