activistpost--2020-11-05--Federal Judge Denies Emergency Injunction Against Punch Google Lawsuit To Restore Free Speech

On November 4th , Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the emergency injunction recently filed against Google .
Now the plaintiffs are considering all of their legal options .
“ I am inclined to deny this temporary restraining order , ” Judge Freeman hinted on November 2nd , following the Zoom hearing .
The ruling was decided the day following the election .
Following the emergency injunction filed against Google at the end of October , the big tech company ’ s attorney Lauren White of Wilson Sonsini maintained that the plaintiffs ’ videos violated the spirit of their policy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t have to go into the specifics of the videos to illustrate and prove cyberbullying violations .
Please follow Maryam Henein on Twitter @ maryamhenein you can support her work on https : //www.patreon.com/ maryamhenein White asserted that there was no breach of contract .
She also reiterated the onus on the plaintiffs to prove their content did not violate the harassment policy , but interestingly did not give specifics on which videos violated the policy over a span of six years on the platform .
Meanwhile , Judge Freeman was not interested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t provide .
In fact , YouTube claimed they ’ re exercising “ their own First Amendment right.
” At 9 a.m on November 2nd , the day before the elections , Judge Beth Labson Freeman , an Obama appointee , heard an emergency injunction filed by Cris Armenta and Credence Sol of ARMENTA & SOL against GOOGLE to reverse the October 15th purge of arguably the largest Trump supporters and newsmakers on YouTube .
Ultimately the judge was unmoved by the breach of contract claim and indicated she would not look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violative of a material violation , that was strange indeed .
Below is my transcript of the Zoom call with added commentary .
“ I obviously do not know what the sites say and frankly the content is not relevant to my analysis , ” said Freeman who admitted not even knowing that YouTube allows users to regularly upload new episodes .
“ So was YouTube reasonable in suddenly determining that there was content that was in breach of the agreement and may cause harm to YouTube ?
” asked Armenta .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say that .
What they said in the notices was that it was cyberbullying and harassing , and yet despite requests and the plaintiffs asking for ( more ) information , they remained quote ‘ baffled ’ as to what they did.
” Armenta continued by adding : “ Can you really interpret in a contract what will take you down if you violate the contract when YouTube will not tell you how you violated the contract ?
And we ’ re not going to give you any clue .
In fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re still not going to tell you what you did .
And given the general policy in favor of promoting the stability of contracts , it simply seems untenable to allow YouTube to simply hike the ball and say you violated something somewhere but we ’ re not going to tell you why or what .
That certainly isn ’ t in good faith of what is in a contract.
” In response , Judge Freeman turned to White while expressing concern for the Anonymous Declaration , testimony from an anonymous YouTube @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respond to the fact these plaintiffs have no idea why their channels were taken down .
And no idea how to appeal , ” Judge Freeman requested to White .
It appears YouTube took down the influencers ’ sites and then changed their policies .
And the dates do not seem to work out .
If this take-down was based on an October 17th change in policy , that may be an issue with violating the contract , Judge Freeman added .
“ Is there something in the contract that requires YouTube to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or whether it ’ s a material breach of the Community Standards and Terms of Services ?
” Freeman asked White .
White responded by saying , “ The connection between the type of content at issue in the plaintiffs ’ channels and the real-world harm and violence is well established and recognized by the FBI and West Point ’ s Combating Terrorism Center.
” Incidentally , West Point educates , advises , and conducts research to equip present and future leaders with the intellectual tools necessary to understand the challenges of terrorism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have not revealed identities or specifics for safety reasons , referencing the shooter on the Google campus two years prior .
The shooter happened to be a content creator who was dissatisfied with the breach of their content on the platform and objected to YouTube ’ s guidelines .
Not to mention that this lawsuit was titled “ Punch Google.
” White ’ s practice focuses on matters raising novel legal questions involving Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act , the First Amendment , the Digital Millennium Copyright Act , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Protection Act .
There seem to be some legitimate and valid concerns that justify the lack of specificity on the part of Google .
Freeman mentioned wanting to know who exactly had filed the complaints to make sure there was a person involved .
She wanted to be assured there was a live person behind the declaration and stated that she could keep that person ’ s identity confidential .
White then said that YouTube is under no obligation to host content and Armenta then responded by claiming that the plaintiffs have suffered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right to host their content on YouTube ’ s platform .
“ They do not hold those rights under the contract .
There is no contractual right , ” said White .
“ So the merits of the breach and irreparable damage can be decided on those grounds alone.
” White made it a point to state that the plaintiffs still have access to Google ’ s services .
1 ) Plaintiffs are free and able to use YouTube to search for other videos .
2 ) Google has not suspended their account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Google services .
White then added that Google has the right to remove content if they feel someone has committed a violation .
“ The plaintiffs are asking for a mandatory injunction that will change the status quo to show the laws and the facts clearly favor their position .
It strikes me that in order to do so they would need to show evidence that YouTube ’ s decision here was not reasonable .
In light of the FBI ’ s findings and West Point ’ s findings of the nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy theory and the targeted harassment involved in plaintiff ’ s videos that they do not deny , that is more than enough of a basis to conclude that plaintiffs have no chance of prevailing , ” said White .
Judge Freeman then added that the plaintiffs are unsure what content was in question since they have had their channels for a duration of six years , and there was no indication of the type of content that had changed over time .
“ There was no contractual right for them to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise to the violation and nowhere does YouTube promise to do that , ” said White .
“ All the plaintiffs got notices that their channels had been terminated because they contained targeted harassment .
Plaintiffs were on notice that they had to comply with their community guidelines and that they could change from time to time.
” “ YouTube has long had policies around hate and harassment and has long taken enforcement action against these types of ‘ conspiracy theories ’ , ” added White .
Armenta interjected to ask White , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17th change in the TOS is not what you acted on ?
But prior policy or prior TOS ?
” “ Miss Armenta is incorrect , ” replied White .
“ As we explained in our brief , the policy announcement happened before the enforcement action .
But the hate and harassment policies and the principles underlying them have long been in place .
As a side note : Facebook Whistleblower Ryan Hartwig says this same mindset at Facebook was referred to as the ‘ spirit of the policy.
’ Meanwhile , YouTube @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change in its enforcement approach and a refinement of the harassment policy that articulated a concrete example of the type of content that would fall within it and it ’ s entirely possible that the plaintiff ’ s content violated the policy before the enforcement action was taken on October 15th and it was entirely consistent with the Community Guidelines.
” Interesting how the term “ conspiracy theory ” is tossed around without any specifics on what exactly is conspiratorial .
Three Strikes And You Are Out White informed Judge Freeman and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that three strikes are not the only basis for channel termination .
The Communist Guidelines outline that channel terminations occur with extreme policy violations or if your channel is ‘ dedicated ’ to a policy violation , e.g .
Covid-19 ‘ misinformation.
’ ( This was why my own channel of four years was expunged within minutes . )
“ YouTube does try to inform the user of the reason but they do not promise any level of specificity or advance notice .
YouTube can suspend a channel without notice when content could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ If the breach is that the plaintiffs did not receive adequate notice then there is no reason that the temporary restraining order would remedy the lack of notice .
That is not what the plaintiffs are seeking .
They are seeking the immediate restoration of the plaintiffs ’ channels but there is nothing in the contract to point to .
There is no contractual right and Ms. Armenta has said nothing about YouTube ’ s own First Amendment right on what speech to allow & what to not allow .
Especially when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmfulness of this type of content .
YouTube is well aware of its discretion not only under its TOS but under the First Amendment rights.
” Armenta went on to show that they purged people on October 15th for a policy that did not exist until October 17th , 2020 .
They didn ’ t add the changes to their Terms of Service until the 17th .
Targeting an individual and making claims is a harmful conspiracy .
That is the policy of temporary restraining order ( TRO ) that did not exist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notice that Google provided to the court , they said they informed them that due to repeated violations they were suspending their account .
Now they want to say that they didn ’ t disable their account but only their content .
So that does create some ambiguity since it comes from Google itself .
Their ambiguity must be interpreted against them.
” said Armenta .
“ Whether we are looking at account suspension or content removal , we can see a violation .
Either way , the plaintiffs did not adhere to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , were there repeated breaches ?
We do have evidence that these plaintiffs did not have repeated notices .
The materiality issue , the only reason they were given was cyberbullying and harassing .
So the court says , ‘ Where is your evidence of that ?
’ ” Armenta referred to a plaintiffs in the complaint .
“ I was not notified by YouTube of the specific reason for the suspension or deletion , other than a general email referencing their cyberbullying and harassment policy .
But my content was NOT cyberbullying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the policy .
They did not see anything violative of the content .
So it falls to YouTube , but other than the FBI does not like QAnon or the FBI does not like this or that , they did not provide the court with a piece of evidence with any of the 15 plaintiffs that have been viewed by more than 800 million people , that shows the content violated or caused harms or created harm or created liability .
So the court does have before them that there was no clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delete their content or delete their account.
’ “ So what is the context as they have not identified a single video .
A single screenshot .
A single URL .
And it ’ s not like this is a small company without the resources to do that .
We ’ re literally talking about the largest tech company in the entire world .
So for them to not be able to provide any shred of evidence .
There are many channels that have NOTHING to do with Qanon and have been swept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with no knowledge as to why .
And they were baffled.
” Freeman stated that “ It ’ s really up to YouTube to decide whether they violate , it ’ s at their own discretion .
So whether I like content or not is immaterial .
It ’ s not up to us .
You would need to persuade me to do it.
” The judge did not think it was up to her to view the content .
“ It ’ s really up to YouTube to decide .
And I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to be in a situation where jurors are deciding whether the content violates the policy because of the extraordinary discretion that the company has .
Whether I like the content that the plaintiffs are posting or I don ’ t is immaterial .
It ’ s not up to me .
I haven ’ t and I would need to be persuaded .
I just want to see if the contract was complied with.
” Armenta added , “ There has been a question as to whether YouTube can operate purely subjectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content removal .
I think that applies to its own terms of services as well .
The Ninth Circuit case of Malware VS Enigma is very instructive on that point .
Just in September , the court held that , NO , YouTube may not subjectively at its will or caprice delete content for reasons that were not made clear.
” Judge Freeman then stated that that is under Section 230 , which she was not looking at in this motion .
“ Well then from a contractual point of view your honor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parties , and the contract says it can be terminated , and one party says there has been a material breach , I do not know of an instance where the court doesn ’ t look at the breach itself to know if it ’ s material , ” responded Armenta .
“ How can the court determine without looking at what it was that was the alleged breach ?
YouTube has come here today talking a lot about QAnon and the FBI says there is no question that this content is violative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opportunity or looked at the content because YouTube did not provide any content .
And I think the reason why is because it probably got it wrong .
The declaration is not reliable and it is hearsay .
They even got wrong the attribution of a quote from Andrew Breitbart when they claimed that the plaintiffs said that John Podesta was a ‘ sex slave cover upper ’ and in fact , it only took about two seconds to find out the quote was from Andrew Brietbart and not any of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believe this anonymous declaration that is replete with hearsay without looking at the actual content itself ?
” asked Armenta .
“ I am not judging materiality on a TRO , remember , ” responded Judge Freeman .
I am not deciding the ultimate merits of the case ; I am determining whether you have established that you have the likelihood of success of the merits and you are asking for a mandatory injunction , and so the standard is higher , ” said Judge Freeman .
“ If we are looking at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ merits , ” responded Armenta , “ then we have to decide how good the contract claim is .
The contract claim necessarily rests on whether or not , as YouTube is defending , the plaintiffs materially or repeatedly violated the contract .
If the plaintiffs have evidence that there were not repeated strikes , then the question goes to materiality .
So don ’ t we look at the content itself ?
” At this point Freeman interjects , “ But you did not submit the content and I recognize the impediment.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ White on the notion that the Community Guidelines had not been changed on October 15th and on how one decides the materiality issue .
“ So regarding the October 15th harassment policy that Ms. Armenta submitted , ” White said , “ I don ’ t know what time of day that policy was pulled but as YouTube indicated in our declaration and our brief , the policy was changed as we indicated before the plaintiffs ’ content was removed .
The change we are talking about was an addition of a specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the policy itself .
The policy did not change or the TOS .
YouTube simply made the policy more coherent and took an enforcement action consistent with it .
It doesn ’ t matter ultimately when the change occurred .
It was an addition to an example .
I ’ d also like to clarify for the record your honor , the notice the plaintiffs received was specifically a notice to a YouTube account which is different from a Google account .
The language in the account suspension and termination provision that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Google account and that is not what is at issue here.
” White then added , “ And finally your honor and I appreciate that you seem to recognize this , it ’ s on the plaintiffs to show that there wasn ’ t a breach that violated the Community Guidelines .
And whether or not the content remains on YouTube , these are their videos that they uploaded .
It ’ s unlikely they do not have copies .
At least they should remember the content to give the court an indication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the harassment policy , and I think that it is very telling that they have chosen not to do so.
” At this point , an hour later , White said she was drawing this session to a close .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

By Maryam Henein
On November 4th, Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the emergency injunction recently filed against Google. Now the plaintiffs are considering all of their legal options.
“I am inclined to deny this temporary restraining order,” Judge Freeman hinted on November 2nd, following the Zoom hearing. The ruling was decided the day following the election.
Following the emergency injunction filed against Google at the end of October, the big tech company’s attorney Lauren White of Wilson Sonsini maintained that the plaintiffs’ videos violated the spirit of their policy, and yet remarkably stated Google/YouTube didn’t have to go into the specifics of the videos to illustrate and prove cyberbullying violations.
Please follow Maryam Henein on Twitter @maryamhenein
you can support her work on https://www.patreon.com/ maryamhenein
White asserted that there was no breach of contract. She also reiterated the onus on the plaintiffs to prove their content did not violate the harassment policy, but interestingly did not give specifics on which videos violated the policy over a span of six years on the platform. Meanwhile, Judge Freeman was not interested in reviewing content that YouTube won’t provide. In fact, YouTube claimed they’re exercising “their own First Amendment right.”
At 9 a.m on November 2nd, the day before the elections, Judge Beth Labson Freeman, an Obama appointee, heard an emergency injunction filed by Cris Armenta and Credence Sol of ARMENTA & SOL against GOOGLE to reverse the October 15th purge of arguably the largest Trump supporters and newsmakers on YouTube.
Ultimately the judge was unmoved by the breach of contract claim and indicated she would not look at the content to determine whether it was violative of a material violation, that was strange indeed. Below is my transcript of the Zoom call with added commentary.
“I obviously do not know what the sites say and frankly the content is not relevant to my analysis,” said Freeman who admitted not even knowing that YouTube allows users to regularly upload new episodes.
“So was YouTube reasonable in suddenly determining that there was content that was in breach of the agreement and may cause harm to YouTube?” asked Armenta. “Well first off they didn’t say that. What they said in the notices was that it was cyberbullying and harassing, and yet despite requests and the plaintiffs asking for (more) information, they remained quote ‘baffled’ as to what they did.”
Armenta continued by adding: “Can you really interpret in a contract what will take you down if you violate the contract when YouTube will not tell you how you violated the contract? And we’re not going to give you any clue. In fact, even if you sue us … we’re still not going to tell you what you did. And given the general policy in favor of promoting the stability of contracts, it simply seems untenable to allow YouTube to simply hike the ball and say you violated something somewhere but we’re not going to tell you why or what. That certainly isn’t in good faith of what is in a contract.”
In response, Judge Freeman turned to White while expressing concern for the Anonymous Declaration, testimony from an anonymous YouTube employee.
“I need you to respond to the fact these plaintiffs have no idea why their channels were taken down. And no idea how to appeal,” Judge Freeman requested to White.
It appears YouTube took down the influencers’ sites and then changed their policies. And the dates do not seem to work out. If this take-down was based on an October 17th change in policy, that may be an issue with violating the contract, Judge Freeman added.
“Is there something in the contract that requires YouTube to identify the problem with the material? Or whether it’s a material breach of the Community Standards and Terms of Services?” Freeman asked White.
White responded by saying, “The connection between the type of content at issue in the plaintiffs’ channels and the real-world harm and violence is well established and recognized by the FBI and West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center.” Incidentally, West Point educates, advises, and conducts research to equip present and future leaders with the intellectual tools necessary to understand the challenges of terrorism and counterterrorism.
White also stated that they have not revealed identities or specifics for safety reasons, referencing the shooter on the Google campus two years prior. The shooter happened to be a content creator who was dissatisfied with the breach of their content on the platform and objected to YouTube’s guidelines. Not to mention that this lawsuit was titled “Punch Google.” White’s practice focuses on matters raising novel legal questions involving Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the First Amendment, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Wiretap Act, and the Video Privacy Protection Act.
There seem to be some legitimate and valid concerns that justify the lack of specificity on the part of Google.
Freeman mentioned wanting to know who exactly had filed the complaints to make sure there was a person involved. She wanted to be assured there was a live person behind the declaration and stated that she could keep that person’s identity confidential.
White then said that YouTube is under no obligation to host content and Armenta then responded by claiming that the plaintiffs have suffered an injury and that they have a right to host their content on YouTube’s platform.
“They do not hold those rights under the contract. There is no contractual right,” said White. “So the merits of the breach and irreparable damage can be decided on those grounds alone.”
White made it a point to state that the plaintiffs still have access to Google’s services. 1) Plaintiffs are free and able to use YouTube to search for other videos. 2) Google has not suspended their account. 3) Plaintiffs have access to other Google services.
White then added that Google has the right to remove content if they feel someone has committed a violation.
“The plaintiffs are asking for a mandatory injunction that will change the status quo to show the laws and the facts clearly favor their position. It strikes me that in order to do so they would need to show evidence that YouTube’s decision here was not reasonable. In light of the FBI’s findings and West Point’s findings of the nature of QAnon Conspiracy theory and the PizzaGate conspiracy theory and the targeted harassment involved in plaintiff’s videos that they do not deny, that is more than enough of a basis to conclude that plaintiffs have no chance of prevailing,” said White.
Judge Freeman then added that the plaintiffs are unsure what content was in question since they have had their channels for a duration of six years, and there was no indication of the type of content that had changed over time. “There was no contractual right for them to know what specific parts of the videos gave rise to the violation and nowhere does YouTube promise to do that,” said White. “All the plaintiffs got notices that their channels had been terminated because they contained targeted harassment. Plaintiffs were on notice that they had to comply with their community guidelines and that they could change from time to time.”
“YouTube has long had policies around hate and harassment and has long taken enforcement action against these types of ‘conspiracy theories’,” added White.
Armenta interjected to ask White, “Are you arguing that the October 17th change in the TOS is not what you acted on? But prior policy or prior TOS?”
“Miss Armenta is incorrect,” replied White. “As we explained in our brief, the policy announcement happened before the enforcement action. But the hate and harassment policies and the principles underlying them have long been in place. As a side note: Facebook Whistleblower Ryan Hartwig says this same mindset at Facebook was referred to as the ‘spirit of the policy.’ Meanwhile, YouTube announced that October 15th was simply a change in its enforcement approach and a refinement of the harassment policy that articulated a concrete example of the type of content that would fall within it and it’s entirely possible that the plaintiff’s content violated the policy before the enforcement action was taken on October 15th and it was entirely consistent with the Community Guidelines.”
Interesting how the term “conspiracy theory” is tossed around without any specifics on what exactly is conspiratorial.
Three Strikes And You Are Out
White informed Judge Freeman and the public listening in to the Zoom call that three strikes are not the only basis for channel termination. The Communist Guidelines outline that channel terminations occur with extreme policy violations or if your channel is ‘dedicated’ to a policy violation, e.g. Covid-19 ‘misinformation.’ (This was why my own channel of four years was expunged within minutes.)
“YouTube does try to inform the user of the reason but they do not promise any level of specificity or advance notice. YouTube can suspend a channel without notice when content could create harm,” says White.
“If the breach is that the plaintiffs did not receive adequate notice then there is no reason that the temporary restraining order would remedy the lack of notice. That is not what the plaintiffs are seeking. They are seeking the immediate restoration of the plaintiffs’ channels but there is nothing in the contract to point to. There is no contractual right and Ms. Armenta has said nothing about YouTube’s own First Amendment right on what speech to allow & what to not allow. Especially when you can consider the nature of the harmfulness of this type of content. YouTube is well aware of its discretion not only under its TOS but under the First Amendment rights.”
It’s own First Amendment?
Armenta went on to show that they purged people on October 15th for a policy that did not exist until October 17th, 2020. They didn’t add the changes to their Terms of Service until the 17th.
Targeting an individual and making claims is a harmful conspiracy. That is the policy of temporary restraining order (TRO) that did not exist on October 15th.
“In their notice that Google provided to the court, they said they informed them that due to repeated violations they were suspending their account. Now they want to say that they didn’t disable their account but only their content. So that does create some ambiguity since it comes from Google itself. Their ambiguity must be interpreted against them.” said Armenta.
“Whether we are looking at account suspension or content removal, we can see a violation. Either way, the plaintiffs did not adhere to their own contract. Under that provision, were there repeated breaches? We do have evidence that these plaintiffs did not have repeated notices. The materiality issue, the only reason they were given was cyberbullying and harassing. So the court says, ‘Where is your evidence of that?’”
Armenta referred to a plaintiffs in the complaint.
“I was not notified by YouTube of the specific reason for the suspension or deletion, other than a general email referencing their cyberbullying and harassment policy. But my content was NOT cyberbullying or harassing in the ways described in the policy. They did not see anything violative of the content. So it falls to YouTube, but other than the FBI does not like QAnon or the FBI does not like this or that, they did not provide the court with a piece of evidence with any of the 15 plaintiffs that have been viewed by more than 800 million people, that shows the content violated or caused harms or created harm or created liability. So the court does have before them that there was no clear violation to give YouTube sufficient jurisdiction to delete their content or delete their account.’
“So what is the context as they have not identified a single video. A single screenshot. A single URL. And it’s not like this is a small company without the resources to do that. We’re literally talking about the largest tech company in the entire world. So for them to not be able to provide any shred of evidence. There are many channels that have NOTHING to do with Qanon and have been swept in to this immediate and sudden PURGE with no knowledge as to why. And they were baffled.”
Freeman stated that “It’s really up to YouTube to decide whether they violate, it’s at their own discretion. So whether I like content or not is immaterial. It’s not up to us. You would need to persuade me to do it.”
The judge did not think it was up to her to view the content.
“It’s really up to YouTube to decide. And I do not know if we are ever going to be in a situation where jurors are deciding whether the content violates the policy because of the extraordinary discretion that the company has. Whether I like the content that the plaintiffs are posting or I don’t is immaterial. It’s not up to me. I haven’t and I would need to be persuaded. I just want to see if the contract was complied with.”
Armenta added, “There has been a question as to whether YouTube can operate purely subjectively or purely objectively when it comes to content removal. I think that applies to its own terms of services as well. The Ninth Circuit case of Malware VS Enigma is very instructive on that point. Just in September, the court held that, NO, YouTube may not subjectively at its will or caprice delete content for reasons that were not made clear.”
Judge Freeman then stated that that is under Section 230, which she was not looking at in this motion.
“Well then from a contractual point of view your honor if you have a contract between two parties, and the contract says it can be terminated, and one party says there has been a material breach, I do not know of an instance where the court doesn’t look at the breach itself to know if it’s material,” responded Armenta.
“How can the court determine without looking at what it was that was the alleged breach? YouTube has come here today talking a lot about QAnon and the FBI says there is no question that this content is violative but the court hasn’t gotten the opportunity or looked at the content because YouTube did not provide any content. And I think the reason why is because it probably got it wrong. The declaration is not reliable and it is hearsay. They even got wrong the attribution of a quote from Andrew Breitbart when they claimed that the plaintiffs said that John Podesta was a ‘sex slave cover upper’ and in fact, it only took about two seconds to find out the quote was from Andrew Brietbart and not any of the plaintiffs. So how can the court believe this anonymous declaration that is replete with hearsay without looking at the actual content itself?” asked Armenta.
“I am not judging materiality on a TRO, remember,” responded Judge Freeman. I am not deciding the ultimate merits of the case; I am determining whether you have established that you have the likelihood of success of the merits and you are asking for a mandatory injunction, and so the standard is higher,” said Judge Freeman.
“If we are looking at the reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits, ” responded Armenta, “then we have to decide how good the contract claim is. The contract claim necessarily rests on whether or not, as YouTube is defending, the plaintiffs materially or repeatedly violated the contract. If the plaintiffs have evidence that there were not repeated strikes, then the question goes to materiality. So don’t we look at the content itself?”
At this point Freeman interjects, “But you did not submit the content and I recognize the impediment.” She then turned to Google attorney White on the notion that the Community Guidelines had not been changed on October 15th and on how one decides the materiality issue.
“So regarding the October 15th harassment policy that Ms. Armenta submitted,” White said, “ I don’t know what time of day that policy was pulled but as YouTube indicated in our declaration and our brief, the policy was changed as we indicated before the plaintiffs’ content was removed. The change we are talking about was an addition of a specific example. It was not a change to the policy itself. The policy did not change or the TOS. YouTube simply made the policy more coherent and took an enforcement action consistent with it. It doesn’t matter ultimately when the change occurred. It was an addition to an example. I’d also like to clarify for the record your honor, the notice the plaintiffs received was specifically a notice to a YouTube account which is different from a Google account. The language in the account suspension and termination provision that plaintiffs are relying on refers to a Google account and that is not what is at issue here.”
(Here Hartwig also adds as a sidenote that Facebook does this too. They would tell him and other content moderators to action things a certain way without changing the policy. Or they wouldn’t update the policy until later.)
White then added, “And finally your honor and I appreciate that you seem to recognize this, it’s on the plaintiffs to show that there wasn’t a breach that violated the Community Guidelines. And whether or not the content remains on YouTube, these are their videos that they uploaded. It’s unlikely they do not have copies. At least they should remember the content to give the court an indication as to how the videos comply with the harassment policy, and I think that it is very telling that they have chosen not to do so.”
At this point, an hour later, White said she was drawing this session to a close.
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-11-05--Company Wants to Replace 5G Towers with Aircraft Equipped with Antennas Producing 480 Individual Ste

Company Wants to Replace 5G Towers with Aircraft Equipped with Antennas Producing 480 Individual Steerable Beams

Opposition and warnings continue to increase about tens of thousands of satellites and similar vehicles being launched for blasting 5G and WiFi at Earth ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ) , global surveillance , and other purposes .
Many entities are responsible for this .
Now more of them want to blast radiation from the sky .
Cambridge Consultants and its partner Stratospheric Platforms Limited ( SPL ) are claiming a breakthrough in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s system for replacing 5G infrastructure on the ground with airborne cell towers .
SPL is working to develop a system that will replace masts on the ground with unmanned aircraft , which are essentially flying cell towers .
SPL , which also is headquartered in Cambridge , U.K. , is developing a High-Altitude Platform ( HAP ) and communications system operating in the stratosphere .
The rollout of 4G/LTE was slow and expensive in the U.K. , and with the move to 5G , it ’ s estimated that an additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.K. , so if the aircraft can replace hundreds of masts , the economics works out very quickly , said SPL CEO Richard Deakin during a media briefing on Monday .
Depending on how many back-up aircraft are used , about 60 aircraft could cover the U.K. Each aircraft can replace at least 200 masts , depending on the configuration , a huge benefit over the installation of masts across the country , Deakin said .
High-speed internet CAN be achieved without 5G and WiFi .
It is safer and more secure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organization warned that high levels of Electromagnetic Radiation ( aka “ Electrosmog ” ) could lead to health issues in a significant percentage of the population .
Therefore , we should be reducing sources of “ Electrosmog ” not increasing them .
The majority of scientists worldwide oppose 5G .
Doctors and scientists have asked for 5G moratoriums on Earth and in space ( see 1 , 2 ) .
Cities worldwide AND entire countries have taken action to ban , delay , halt , and limit installation AS WELL AS issue moratoriums @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of people and animals experiencing symptoms and illnesses after 5G has been installed ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) .
These aircraft may eliminate some of the legal challenges faced by telecom companies .
That doesn ’ t make any of this right .
Activist Post reports regularly about 5G , WiFi , and other unsafe technology .
For more information visit our archives and the following websites .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
Opposition and warnings continue to increase about tens of thousands of satellites and similar vehicles being launched for blasting 5G and WiFi at Earth (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15), global surveillance, and other purposes. Many entities are responsible for this. Now more of them want to blast radiation from the sky.
From Fierce Wireless:
Deutsche Telekom-backed venture seeks to replace 5G masts with aircraft
Cambridge Consultants and its partner Stratospheric Platforms Limited (SPL) are claiming a breakthrough in the antenna technology that Cambridge developed for SPL’s system for replacing 5G infrastructure on the ground with airborne cell towers.
SPL is working to develop a system that will replace masts on the ground with unmanned aircraft, which are essentially flying cell towers. SPL, which also is headquartered in Cambridge, U.K., is developing a High-Altitude Platform (HAP) and communications system operating in the stratosphere.
The rollout of 4G/LTE was slow and expensive in the U.K., and with the move to 5G, it’s estimated that an additional 400,000 masts will be needed to cover the U.K., so if the aircraft can replace hundreds of masts, the economics works out very quickly, said SPL CEO Richard Deakin during a media briefing on Monday.
Depending on how many back-up aircraft are used, about 60 aircraft could cover the U.K. Each aircraft can replace at least 200 masts, depending on the configuration, a huge benefit over the installation of masts across the country, Deakin said.
Read full article


activistpost--2020-11-04--RQ-180? Next-Gen Spy Drone Spotted Over California

A mysterious military drone , operating near Edwards AFB , California , was photographed in broad daylight and recently uploaded to social media .
Instagram user Rob Kolinsky of Sundowner Studios uploaded the photograph on Nov. 1 of the drone but has since replaced the image with a graphic that reads , “ [ REDACTED ] ” , according to The Aviationist .
In the original post , Kolinsky wrote , “ this [ military drone ] flew over my house several weeks ago and I still have yet to identify it !
It ’ s shaped like a B-21 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white .
Mystery !
” He continued : “ I was not going to post it but I thought that if it were really classified , they wouldn ’ t be flying it in broad daylight like this .
Can anyone lend a hand in identifying her ?
” While Kolinsky mentioned the photograph is from “ several weeks ago , ” there was no mention of the exact date , time , or specific location .
Nevertheless , there was no mention of the camera used to take the photo .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reporters Steve Trimble and Guy Norris wrote an article describing the “ new aircraft generally matching Aerospace DAILY ’ s understanding of the shape of what is commonly known as the RQ-180 unmanned aircraft system ( UAS ) .
” “ Quick review of the image .
there is some JPG artifacting going on around the subject but could be the compression as well .
The subject it self looks pretty legit I put some similar drones aside it for comparison .
B2 is out of the question because it has a double @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said on Twitter user .
Not too long ago , we reported a combat stealth drone also known as “ loyal wingman ” for fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft was spotted in Australia .
Who knows if the mysterious drone was an actual RQ-180 , but what this all suggests is that the US military is quickly advancing autonomous war machines as geopolitical tensions rise with China .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Tyler Durden
A mysterious military drone, operating near Edwards AFB, California, was photographed in broad daylight and recently uploaded to social media.
Instagram user Rob Kolinsky of Sundowner Studios uploaded the photograph on Nov. 1 of the drone but has since replaced the image with a graphic that reads, “[REDACTED]”, according to The Aviationist.
In the original post, Kolinsky wrote, “this [military drone] flew over my house several weeks ago and I still have yet to identify it! It’s shaped like a B-21 (in illustrations) but was painted white. Mystery!”
He continued: “I was not going to post it but I thought that if it were really classified, they wouldn’t be flying it in broad daylight like this. Can anyone lend a hand in identifying her?”
While Kolinsky mentioned the photograph is from “several weeks ago,” there was no mention of the exact date, time, or specific location. Nevertheless, there was no mention of the camera used to take the photo.
After Kolinsky removed the photo, Aviation Week reporters Steve Trimble and Guy Norris wrote an article describing the “new aircraft generally matching Aerospace DAILY’s understanding of the shape of what is commonly known as the RQ-180 unmanned aircraft system (UAS).”
“Quick review of the image. there is some JPG artifacting going on around the subject but could be the compression as well. The subject it self looks pretty legit I put some similar drones aside it for comparison. B2 is out of the question because it has a double ‘saw tooth’ tail,” said on Twitter user.
Quick review of the image. there is some JPG artifacting going on around the subject but could be the compression as well. The subject it self looks pretty legit I put some similar drones aside it for comparison. B2 is out of the question because it has a double 'saw tooth' tail. pic.twitter.com/WTTJthiarj — Ruben Hofs (@rubenhofs) November 2, 2020
Not too long ago, we reported a combat stealth drone also known as “loyal wingman” for fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft was spotted in Australia.
Who knows if the mysterious drone was an actual RQ-180, but what this all suggests is that the US military is quickly advancing autonomous war machines as geopolitical tensions rise with China.
Source: Zero Hedge
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-11-04--Walmart to Remove Robot Employees from U.S. Stores Instead of Adding More

There have been countless reports about humans losing their jobs to robots .
Now robots are getting the axe at @ @ @ @ @ replace them ?
Walmart to end experiment with robots in US stores Walmart has pulled @ @ @ @ @ to use robots to scan items in stores and help maintain inventory , a company @ @ @ @ @ retail giant had worked with Bossa Nova Robotics for five years employing elongated robots that @ @ @ @ @ utilize artificial intelligence to predict product movement and inventory needs .
Walmart had announced earlier @ @ @ @ @ the robots in around 1,000 of its 4,700 US stores .
But the company reversed @ @ @ @ @ into around 500 stores , Walmart said .

By B.N. Frank
There have been countless reports about humans losing their jobs to robots. Now robots are getting the axe at Walmart. But what will replace them?
From Yahoo:
Walmart to end experiment with robots in US stores
AFP•November 3, 2020
Walmart has pulled the plug on a program to use robots to scan items in stores and help maintain inventory, a company spokeswoman said Tuesday.
The retail giant had worked with Bossa Nova Robotics for five years employing elongated robots that take readings on inventory and utilize artificial intelligence to predict product movement and inventory needs.
Walmart had announced earlier this year plans to employ the robots in around 1,000 of its 4,700 US stores.
But the company reversed course after bringing the machines into around 500 stores, Walmart said.
Read full article


activistpost--2020-11-04--Good Cop Fired for Exposing Bad Cop Who Savagely Attacked Elderly Man with Dementia

Clayton , GA — As TFTP has consistently reported , if 300 cops remain silent as one bad cop abuses his authority and harms others , all 300 of those cops become bad cops .
Unfortunately , silence — otherwise known as the blue code of silence — is the norm and good cops stopping bad ones is the exception .
The reason good cops are afraid to call out the bad ones is because crossing this thin blue line will most likely end their careers , or worse .
Clayton police officer Ryan Hamilton was with the department for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ended that career .
Last year , Hamilton heard about one of his fellow officers abusing a 73-year-old man on video .
At the time , Hamilton was the assistant police chief so he pulled the dash camera video to review it .
It shocked him .
“ Never seen that kind of treatment of someone , ” he said .
The video showed Sgt .
Travis Gibson abusing a confused elderly man with dementia because he was so confused he didn ’ t know how to unbuckle his seat belt .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yelled from his cruiser at the elderly man .
Gibson suspected the driver , 73-year-old Alton Owens , of being under the influence and pulled him over after a brief low-speed chase .
As the video shows , Owens is confused and unable to get his seat belt off .
Gibson then claimed Owens tried to grab his vest — a move which was likely entirely innocent and done in a moment of confusion — but that led to the officer tasering the elderly man .
He then punched Owens multiple times in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of DUI .
After Hamilton watched the video , he had to do something about Gibson ’ s excessive force .
“ The guy was 73 years old , ” said Hamilton .
“ He could have been somebody ’ s grandpa , father , anybody .
Nobody deserves to be treated like that.
” Indeed , he was .
Hamilton brought the video to Clayton police chief Andy Strait and Strait , Hamilton ’ s personal friend , did nothing about it .
Instead of taking action against Gibson for the clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Strait justified it .
“ It ’ s never pretty when you have to make an arrest , ” Strait told the FOX 5 I-Team .
After the chief brushed him off , Hamilton decided to take matters into his own hands .
“ You got ta do what ’ s right , ” Hamilton said .
“ And I did what ’ s right.
” So , Hamilton took out his phone and recorded about 20 seconds of the dashcam video and sent it to his fiancee who works for the Rabun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would cost him his job .
When they received the video , prosecutors already had two other excessive force cases on their plate involving Gibson .
Two weeks after the low-speed chase , Gibson responded to a call of a jewelry store owner threatening people with a knife .
The owner was unarmed when Gibson approached .
When he wouldn ’ t quiet down , Gibson grabbed him and took him to the ground .
“ You ’ re not going to stand here and yell in my face !
” Gibson yelled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a woman who had refused to get out of someone ’ s car .
She was standing by the car when he arrived .
When she wouldn ’ t back up , he grabbed her too .
Despite Gibson ’ s multiple acts of excessive force , Gibson was not fired and instead was allowed to resign .
During the same time , the video Hamilton had sent to his fiancee had somehow made it to the family of the elderly man .
Owens ’ daughter , Sherry Taylor , said she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so she shared the video with family .
In October , Strait heard about the video and confronted his assistant chief .
Hamilton admitted he was the source but not the one who sent it to Taylor .
As FOX 5 reports , it made no difference .
To the chief , his longtime assistant had violated policy .
On Oct. 15 , Strait asked Hamilton for his resignation .
“ It was just a broken trust there that couldn ’ t be repaired , ” he said .
“ I worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and I were friends .
It really bothered me .
It still does .
It tears me up because Ryan and I had been through a lot together .
That really bothers me .
But in this case , I was left with no choice.
” Sadly , Hamilton says he is done with his career in law enforcement and the police force will now be short a good cop .
As for the bad cop who savagely beat an elderly man with dementia , he still works part-time for the Rabun County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Police Department .
Showing just how good of a cop he was , Hamilton has no regrets about what he did because it was the right thing to do .
“ I just want people to know I did the right thing , ” Hamilton said .
“ It cost me , but it was still the right thing to do.
” Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA .
This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world .
Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project .
Follow @ MattAgorist on Twitter , Steemit , and now on Minds .

By Matt Agorist
Clayton, GA — As TFTP has consistently reported, if 300 cops remain silent as one bad cop abuses his authority and harms others, all 300 of those cops become bad cops. Unfortunately, silence — otherwise known as the blue code of silence — is the norm and good cops stopping bad ones is the exception.
The reason good cops are afraid to call out the bad ones is because crossing this thin blue line will most likely end their careers, or worse. Clayton police officer Ryan Hamilton was with the department for 15 years and being a good cop ended that career.
Last year, Hamilton heard about one of his fellow officers abusing a 73-year-old man on video. At the time, Hamilton was the assistant police chief so he pulled the dash camera video to review it. It shocked him.
“Never seen that kind of treatment of someone,” he said.
The video showed Sgt. Travis Gibson abusing a confused elderly man with dementia because he was so confused he didn’t know how to unbuckle his seat belt.
“Pull over dumb ass!” Gibson yelled from his cruiser at the elderly man.
Gibson suspected the driver, 73-year-old Alton Owens, of being under the influence and pulled him over after a brief low-speed chase. As the video shows, Owens is confused and unable to get his seat belt off.
Gibson then claimed Owens tried to grab his vest — a move which was likely entirely innocent and done in a moment of confusion — but that led to the officer tasering the elderly man. He then punched Owens multiple times in the head and arrested him for suspicion of DUI.
After Hamilton watched the video, he had to do something about Gibson’s excessive force.
“The guy was 73 years old,” said Hamilton. “He could have been somebody’s grandpa, father, anybody. Nobody deserves to be treated like that.”
Indeed, he was.
Hamilton brought the video to Clayton police chief Andy Strait and Strait, Hamilton’s personal friend, did nothing about it. Instead of taking action against Gibson for the clear violation of rights on the video, Strait justified it.
“It’s never pretty when you have to make an arrest,” Strait told the FOX 5 I-Team.
After the chief brushed him off, Hamilton decided to take matters into his own hands.
“You gotta do what’s right,” Hamilton said. “And I did what’s right.”
So, Hamilton took out his phone and recorded about 20 seconds of the dashcam video and sent it to his fiancee who works for the Rabun County District Attorney — a move that would cost him his job.
When they received the video, prosecutors already had two other excessive force cases on their plate involving Gibson.
As FOX 5 reports:
Two weeks after the low-speed chase, Gibson responded to a call of a jewelry store owner threatening people with a knife. The owner was unarmed when Gibson approached. When he wouldn’t quiet down, Gibson grabbed him and took him to the ground. “You’re not going to stand here and yell in my face!” Gibson yelled. And in April, Gibson encountered a woman who had refused to get out of someone’s car. She was standing by the car when he arrived. When she wouldn’t back up, he grabbed her too.
Despite Gibson’s multiple acts of excessive force, Gibson was not fired and instead was allowed to resign.
During the same time, the video Hamilton had sent to his fiancee had somehow made it to the family of the elderly man.
Owens’ daughter, Sherry Taylor, said she was furious after watching Gibson abuse her father, so she shared the video with family.
In October, Strait heard about the video and confronted his assistant chief. Hamilton admitted he was the source but not the one who sent it to Taylor.
As FOX 5 reports, it made no difference. To the chief, his longtime assistant had violated policy. On Oct. 15, Strait asked Hamilton for his resignation.
“It was just a broken trust there that couldn’t be repaired,” he said. “I worked with Ryan for so long. He and I were friends. It really bothered me. It still does. It tears me up because Ryan and I had been through a lot together. That really bothers me. But in this case, I was left with no choice.”
Sadly, Hamilton says he is done with his career in law enforcement and the police force will now be short a good cop. As for the bad cop who savagely beat an elderly man with dementia, he still works part-time for the Rabun County Sheriff’s Office and the Hiawassee Police Department.
Showing just how good of a cop he was, Hamilton has no regrets about what he did because it was the right thing to do.
“I just want people to know I did the right thing,” Hamilton said. “It cost me, but it was still the right thing to do.”
Source: The Free Thought Project
Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Minds.


activistpost--2020-11-04--Tuesday Was a Green Wave for Marijuana Legalization

For months , we ’ ve heard about “ blue waves ” and “ red waves.
” Americans saw neither on Tuesday .
Democrats retained their House majority but bled several congressional seats , while Republicans appear poised to keep the Senate .
And nobody knows who the president will be .
That doesn ’ t mean there was no wave , however .
America ’ s march toward ending cannabis prohibition continued on Tuesday , as voters in several states embraced legalization by overwhelming margins .
Five states — Arizona , Mississippi , Montana , New Jersey , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to legalize use of the recreational drug .
Each state voted in favor of legalization .
As of early November 4 , the results were the following : Though marijuana remains a controlled substance under federal law , US Attorney General William Barr has signaled support for a Tenth Amendment-style approach that would allow states to determine the legality of marijuana use .
While states saw some questionable policies pass , on marijuana use Americans spoke loud and clear : end prohibition .
Following Tuesday ’ s vote , some 16 million more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freely .
“ 1 in 3 Americans now lives in a state where recreational marijuana is legal , ” Politico points out .
The reasons America has headed in this direction are are manifold .
Studies show marijuana legalization is creating tens of thousands of jobs projected to generate more than a quarter billion dollars of labor income annually by 2024 .
( These projections will only grow as more states adopt legalization policies . )
Marijuana prohibition , on the other hand , has resulted in mass prosecution and imprisonment of non-violent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrests for pot account for more than half of all drug busts in the US .
These arrests disproportionately impact African Americans , who are 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana than whites , despite similar usage rates .
Like alcohol prohibition in the US ( 1920-1933 ) , marijuana prohibition is a well-intentioned policy designed to keep people from using a potentially harmful product .
And like alcohol prohibition , it soon became apparent the prescription was worse than the disease itself .
Studies show that marijuana legalization lowers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggravated assaults , and robberies .
The war on drugs was always a bad idea , and Tuesday ’ s vote shows that Americans of all political persuasions increasingly recognize it .
That ’ s a win for freedom , cannabis users , and the whole economy .
Read More on This Issue • The War on Drugs Has Failed .
It ’ s Time to Rethink Our Prison System *Results will be updated when final Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By Jon Miltimore
For months, we’ve heard about “blue waves” and “red waves.”
Americans saw neither on Tuesday.
Democrats retained their House majority but bled several congressional seats, while Republicans appear poised to keep the Senate. And nobody knows who the president will be.
That doesn’t mean there was no wave, however. America’s march toward ending cannabis prohibition continued on Tuesday, as voters in several states embraced legalization by overwhelming margins.
Five states — Arizona, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota — had ballot initiatives seeking to legalize use of the recreational drug. Each state voted in favor of legalization.
As of early November 4, the results were the following:
Arizona: 60 – 40 Mississippi: 62 – 38 Montana: 57.5 – 42.5 New Jersey 66 – 34 South Dakota: 53.5 – 46.6*
The Unstoppable Green Wave
Though marijuana remains a controlled substance under federal law, US Attorney General William Barr has signaled support for a Tenth Amendment-style approach that would allow states to determine the legality of marijuana use.
While states saw some questionable policies pass, on marijuana use Americans spoke loud and clear: end prohibition.
Following Tuesday’s vote, some 16 million more Americans will soon be able marijuana smoke freely.
“1 in 3 Americans now lives in a state where recreational marijuana is legal,” Politico points out.
The reasons America has headed in this direction are are manifold.
Studies show marijuana legalization is creating tens of thousands of jobs projected to generate more than a quarter billion dollars of labor income annually by 2024. (These projections will only grow as more states adopt legalization policies.)
Marijuana prohibition, on the other hand, has resulted in mass prosecution and imprisonment of non-violent Americans. According to the ACLU, arrests for pot account for more than half of all drug busts in the US. These arrests disproportionately impact African Americans, who are 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana than whites, despite similar usage rates.
Like alcohol prohibition in the US (1920-1933), marijuana prohibition is a well-intentioned policy designed to keep people from using a potentially harmful product. And like alcohol prohibition, it soon became apparent the prescription was worse than the disease itself.
Studies show that marijuana legalization lowers violent crime, with fewer homicides, aggravated assaults, and robberies.
The war on drugs was always a bad idea, and Tuesday’s vote shows that Americans of all political persuasions increasingly recognize it. That’s a win for freedom, cannabis users, and the whole economy.
Read More on This Issue
*Results will be updated when final
Source: FEE.org
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-11-04--Same Facts, Opposite Conclusions – Propaganda Watch

So how do you start from the same facts and arrive at exactly opposite conclusions ?
Let ’ s find out as we delve into a recent report about lockdown-related deaths from The Sunday Times .
• Revealed : how elderly paid price of protecting NHS from Covid-19 • 80 % of NYC ’ s coronavirus patients who are put on ventilators ultimately die , and some doctors are trying to stop using them • Stats Hold a Surprise : Lockdowns May Have Had Little Effect on COVID-19 Spread • Decreased Influenza Activity During the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Africa , 2020 Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4 Visit James Corbett at CorbettReport.com .
Subscribe to his channel on YouTube and Bitchute , and support him on Patreon .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE , Parler , Flote , Minds , and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a @ @ @ @ @ @ @

By James Corbett
So how do you start from the same facts and arrive at exactly opposite conclusions?
Let’s find out as we delve into a recent report about lockdown-related deaths from The Sunday Times.
SHOW NOTES:

Watch on Archive / BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube or Download the mp4
Visit James Corbett at CorbettReport.com. Subscribe to his channel on YouTube and Bitchute, and support him on Patreon.
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


activistpost--2020-11-04--Simulations of Massive MIMO Beamforming in 5G Small Cell Tower

According to a lawsuit and the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) Chairman , all Americans have already paid to have high-speed internet where they live ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) .
High-speed internet is achievable , safer AND more secure with a wired internet connection ( see 1 , 2 ) not 5G or WiFi .
Opposition to both 4G and 5G small cell towers started before 5G was introduced in American communities ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) .
Regardless , countless small cells have been installed and more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insidious “ Race for 5G ” which has been endorsed by Trump , the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) , Big Telecom , and other proponents .
In 2019 telecom executives gave U.S. congressional testimony that they had NO independent scientific evidence that 5G is safe .
Since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals experiencing symptoms and illnesses after 5G has been installed ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) .
Of course , other sources of wireless emit harmful radiation too .
Last year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ levels of Electromagnetic Radiation ( aka “ Electrosmog ” ) could lead to health issues in a significant percentage of the populations .
Warnings from medical experts and researchers about cell phone and wireless radiation are NOT new .
For many years American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical experts have warned that children are more vulnerable to exposure The FCC has been a corrupt and “ captured ” agency for decades .
During the Trump administration , lawsuits have been filed against them for NOT protecting the public from unsafe levels of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) and in space .
The agency refuses to update 24-year-old federal wireless radiation exposure guidelines .
Doctors and scientists have asked MANY TIMES and again recently that health and environmental risks from radiation from 5G , cell towers and other wireless sources be evaluated by experts with no conflicts of interest ( see also 1 , 2 , 3 ) .
Nope .
American opposition to 5G is not limited to biological and environmental risks ( see 1 , 2 ) .
Federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will threaten jobs , national security , public safety , and weather forecasting accuracy ( see 1 , 2 , 3 ) .
Congress members have addressed the FCC with their concerns ( see 1 , 2 ) .
In addition to municipalities filing lawsuits against the agency , they have passed resolutions to ban 5G until studies prove it ’ s safe ( see 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ) and ordinances to limit and/or control installation .
State representatives in Hawaii and Illinois have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientists worldwide oppose 5G .
Cities worldwide AND entire countries have taken action to ban , delay , halt , and limit installation AS WELL AS issue moratoriums .
Americans deserve and have already paid for better than this : Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other unsafe technology .
For more information visit our archives and the following websites .
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth , peace , and freedom news .
Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE !
Follow us on SoMee , HIVE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Twitter .
Provide , Protect and Profit from what ’ s coming !
Get a free issue of Counter Markets today .

By B.N. Frank
According to a lawsuit and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman, all Americans have already paid to have high-speed internet where they live (see 1, 2, 3, 4). High-speed internet is achievable, safer AND more secure with a wired internet connection (see 1, 2) not 5G or WiFi.
Opposition to both 4G and 5G small cell towers started before 5G was introduced in American communities (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Regardless, countless small cells have been installed and more are on the way because of the insidious “Race for 5G” which has been endorsed by Trump, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Big Telecom, and other proponents.
These videos simulate “beamforming” from a 5G small cell.
In 2019 telecom executives gave U.S. congressional testimony that they had NO independent scientific evidence that 5G is safe.
Since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals experiencing symptoms and illnesses after 5G has been installed (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Of course, other sources of wireless emit harmful radiation too. Last year, the World Health Organization cautioned that high levels of Electromagnetic Radiation (aka “Electrosmog”) could lead to health issues in a significant percentage of the populations. Warnings from medical experts and researchers about cell phone and wireless radiation are NOT new. For many years American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical experts have warned that children are more vulnerable to exposure
The FCC has been a corrupt and “captured” agency for decades. During the Trump administration, lawsuits have been filed against them for NOT protecting the public from unsafe levels of radiation as well as 5G on Earth (see 1, 2, 3, 4) and in space. The agency refuses to update 24-year-old federal wireless radiation exposure guidelines. Doctors and scientists have asked MANY TIMES and again recently that health and environmental risks from radiation from 5G, cell towers and other wireless sources be evaluated by experts with no conflicts of interest (see also 1, 2, 3). Nope.
American opposition to 5G is not limited to biological and environmental risks (see 1, 2). Federal agencies and credible experts have warned that it will threaten jobs, national security, public safety, and weather forecasting accuracy (see 1, 2, 3). Congress members have addressed the FCC with their concerns (see 1, 2). In addition to municipalities filing lawsuits against the agency, they have passed resolutions to ban 5G until studies prove it’s safe (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and ordinances to limit and/or control installation. State representatives in Hawaii and Illinois have introduced 5G bills.
The majority of scientists worldwide oppose 5G. Cities worldwide AND entire countries have taken action to ban, delay, halt, and limit installation AS WELL AS issue moratoriums.
Americans deserve and have already paid for better than this:
Activist Post reports regularly about 5G and other unsafe technology. For more information visit our archives and the following websites.
Become a Patron!
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.