Category Archives: Law Enforcement

Daunte Wright: What went wrong?

The shooting of Daunte Wright can only be described as a sad tragedy. What should had been a simple traffic stop quickly escalated into a situation that would leave one man dead and an officer facing charges. What happened on the day Daunte was shot? Here’s what we currently know. On 04/11/2021,  Wright was pulled...

This content is for Basic and Gold Status members only.
Login Join Now

American trucking company forces woman to suffer?

We all know the importance of the commercial drivers who traverse our highways. These men and women sacrifice weeks of their lives, living on the road, to deliver the products that we all use on a daily basis, without these brave individuals, our country would simply come to an abrupt halt. However, as we have reported before, the industry is riddled with flaws, corruption, and complete disregard for these individuals. If you are curious as to the source of all of this, you only need to look as far as the companies themselves. With that in mind, this brings us to a disturbing story that we have been made aware of. This story derives the transportation carrier, ‘Hirschbach Motor lines.’

Events unfolding

Recently, a serious winter storm struck most of the Midwest. Parts of the country, such as Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana to name a few, were at a complete disadvantage as they desperately attempted to ward off the ice and snow, which had accumulated on the roads. Meanwhile, in Denton TX., a driver and his fiancé were walking into a truck stop for food. This mere decision would become the start of a dispute that would last hours.

They returned to the semi with little issue. However, as the young woman began to climb up its steps, she suddenly slipped, falling to the ground, and ultimately breaking her arm. Multiple drivers attempted to assist the young woman, including her soon-to-be husband, eventually getting her safely into the vehicle. As per the company’s policy, the driver called to report the incident, citing that she was in immediate need of emergency assistance. The company disregarded this. As he continued to fight with company, the driver began utilizing what medical training he had in hopes of easing her pain.

The feud

The driver continued his contact with the dispatch department, only to be given answers that, according to the young woman, were impossible. He was given suggestions such as:

  1. Taking the entire truck and trailer to the hospital. We are told this was impossible simply because both vehicle and trailer could not fit into the parking lot.
  2. Call Uber or a taxi. This was impossible due to the winter storm, they simply weren’t operating their cabs or Ubers.
  3. Drop the trailer. While this was a feasible solution, the company refused to give the driver a drop location. Dropping the trailer without their consent could had potentially cost him a job or been deemed as an abandonment by the company, which we are told is a career ending accusation.

In the end, it would be more than twenty-four hours before the young woman would get to a medical professional. Not only is this a complete disregard for human life, which is apparently a common theme within companies, it’s illegal.

Synopsis

The facts here should be rather apparent. The situation involves a young woman, riding a commercial vehicle that is owned by the company. She has a misfortunate event that leads to a broken arm. The company, at this point, has a legal responsibility: they must get her medical treatment within a timely fashion. In not doing so, the company put her at risk of contracting an infection known as ‘osteomyelitis.’ This is an infection of the bone. Though uncommon, it can become a life-threatening situation.

Furthermore, the carrier allowed her to be on the semi, documents submitted to us further confirm that the company was fully aware of the fact that she was authorized to be present, this only furthers the company’s liability in this situation. By doing nothing, providing the driver with no plausible solution for getting her medical treatment, the company has only successfully created a potential act of litigation, one to which they could not possibly win.

From the editor

If you value what ‘War on Corruption, LLC’ is doing, please consider subscribing to us. There are a variety of ways in doing so.

  1. You can join our Gold status, right here on our website.
  2.  You can join our Patreon here!
  3. Follow us on Twitter: @WoCPlatform
  4. Follow us on Youtube here.
  5. Or simply share our articles. It will be a great support and much appreciated.

America’s war on itself

Recent events have done nothing more than demonstrate the problem that has been ignored for many years. While many of us have known that this day would arrive, the vast majority sat in the comfort of their own homes, completely ignorant of what was about to come. Today, we’re going to review the rapid progression on the “war” against the American people. This is a war brought fourth by corporations and our very own government.

Election fiasco

It should be obvious that the vast majority believe the election was rigged. While our platform has always been critical of Trump, we were even more critical of the idea of having “mail-in” votes. The concept of mailing in your vote simply left to many variables for things to go wrong. While I’m not willing to blatantly state that the election was rigged, I am willing to entertain the idea that it is very likely. Even with that aside, even with my criticism of Donald Trump, I believe, without doubt, that he is being completely railroaded by Nancy Pelosi and her “goons.”

In recent months, we saw the first impeachment process against Trump. Let’s face the reality about that process, it was a bogus situation with nothing less than ill intent. Of course, this wasn’t the last attempt to destroy the now former president. In recent weeks, in a highly controversial and potentially illegal move, we witnessed a second impeachment. This process was based on the grounds that Trump incited a riot at the capital. But did he? Well, the tweets that they are using say nothing about condoning a riot. In fact, the term didn’t even appear in the tweets; the fact is, we simply could not find any tweet to which President Trump encouraged a riot. But what about the riot itself?

Mainstream media has really bitten into this one. We know things were stolen from the capital. We know that people were killed during this riot. But what many people don’t know is how this group successfully bypassed heavily armed Security, law enforcement, and even Secret Service agents to get into this building. For that, you only have to search for videos, which are being spread all over the internet. What we see in these videos are the police opening barricades to allow the protestors in. Police are seen talking with the protestors, interacting with these “dangerous” thugs. What I’m saying here should be clear: they got in because the police literally opened the doors for them. Because of these videos, some people are lead to believe that this was actually a bait to justify impeachment.

The second impeachment is highly questionable, at best. While it would still have to go court, even with the votes already being cast, Trump will no longer be in office when this happens. This would make him the first President to ever be impeached after already being removed from his position. Of course, the second impeachment is also a first. Meanwhile, as a result of this, tensions are quickly reaching a boiling point. I no longer believe that the possibility of civil war, I now wonder when it will happen.

Further tension arose with the questionable removal of Trump from social media. While many people are surprised and shocked by this, they really shouldn’t be. For years, Facebook has taken a stance to shutdown independent media platforms, or anybody who spoke against their supported political figure; Twitter is known to do the same, though not as extreme as Facebook. The basic point is: they’ve been censoring people for years now, with no accountability, and it’s not going to stop just because of who the person is. For those who are absolutely outraged by this, questions regarding our constitutional rights arise. Can a company do this? Well, that’s tricky. Technically, they are private companies. However, as I’ve said many times before, a company who is on the stock market falls into the category of being “public domain.”

Rather or not they can do this doesn’t mean they won’t. As our own government continues to put the nails into the coffin of our democracy, at the expense of the American people, we can expect to see many more reactions. The capital riot is just the start of what could very well become an outright war. While the government has the ability to prevent this, I don’t believe they will. If anything, I believe this is exactly what they’ve been wanting to happen. After all, anybody who’s observant can see that this tension has been slowly boiling for many years now.

Targeted

December 19th, marks the day that five of the seven members of the “War on Corruption” team got unbanned. For two months, we had fought a losing battle just to obtain information as to why we had gotten banned in the first place. While, to this day, nobody associated with the platform knows why we had gotten banned, it does seem that this is a calculated and deliberate attack against the platform.

Yesterday, December 25th, like so many around the world, I had a day that was filled to the brim in events. Between exchanging gifts, family time, etc. Facebook wasn’t even on the forefront of my mind. Later in the evening, when I had finally gotten some time, I check my messages. As it would turn out, I had four new messages from the same individuals who had recently gotten unblocked from Facebook. Every one of these messages were informing me that their accounts, once again, had been blocked. You can imagine my dismay to this.

At this point, I decide to take a quick glance at my profile. Although I had not been online for the entire day, it too was blocked. The vague reason being that I had violated their community standards. However, it didn’t inform me as to how I violated these vague standards nor did it show me anything that I had posted that could had been a violation. At this point, I had my confirmation: Facebook is maliciously, willfully, and with full intent, targeting my platform and harassing those associated with it. Now this is something important and I am about to explain why.

You may, or may not, be aware of this: In 2012 Facebook placed itself into the stock market. This was good financially, but very bad for how Facebook is currently operating. Because they are in the stock market, they are no longer a private company. That’s also important to note. Being that they are no longer a private company, it is no longer a question as to rather or not they can simply run the show however they see fit. For example, in a private setting, your constitutional rights don’t mean a thing. For Facebook, who is now in the public setting, the coin flips. They can’t simply censor out your rights.

Unlike the first go around, those of us who have been shadow banned from the site, have opted to simply delete our profiles. In doing so, we have effectively destroyed our own platform, by force courtesy of Facebook and it’s tyrannical approach to freelance journalism. In the meantime, we continue to seek out others who have been targeted in this way, we continue our search for a civil rights attorney, with the hope of putting an end to the illegal activities being conducted by Facebook. Until that time, we still debate the final fate for the platform on Facebook. However, one thing is cemented: It will be removed at some point.

Are retailers violating the HIPAA ACT?

With the COVID situation running rampant, it shouldn’t be a surprise that your medical information is now being forced to be presented to employers. Failing to do so is met with consequences, loss of employment, or even suspension without pay. However, some employers, such as Dollar Tree, have taken this a step further. They not only ask for your medical information, they are accused of asking for information pertaining to related to the employee. With this accusation, a member of our team applied, got the job, and tested this theory out. This article is going to present information provided to us by a former employee and the results of what we learned first hand.

HIPAA

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability (HIPAA) Act was designed in 1996 with the purpose of protecting sensitive medical information. With this act, doctors are forbidden from divulging information of any patient without having prior written consent. However, the act expands beyond that aspect. With the HIPAA Act, patients have control of their medical information, they can choose who to provide this information to, and it limits what medical information an employer can obtain; this last portion is where our article is primarily focused.

While this act doesn’t necessarily pertain to employers, there are aspects of it that do. For instance, under the HIPPA Act, an employee is not required to divulge their medical files, or even diagnosis and treatment. While we are currently in a pandemic, this changes nothing as the HIPPA Act simply does not address situations such as this. An employer asking an employee the results of a Covid test could be taken as a violation as, once again, a patient is not required to give the employee their diagnosis or treatment information. This brings us to the retail industry, who seem to ask their employees for this very piece of vital information.

Retails intrusive questions

With the information we had obtained from a source, our platform decided to go “inside” and find out for ourselves. For this, a member of our team applied at a local “Dollar Tree.” This location was selected because it was the company that we had gotten the complaint about. Like magic, the application was approved and we had our feet in the door. At this point, the investigation commenced.

The first night was uneventful. No questions were asked, just the typical “pre-opening” work. Shelves were stocked, boxes were stored, that sort of thing. Our new insider had begun to question rather or not the accusations were, in fact, even true. After working for hours, we had initially thought the investigation was a fluke. This conclusion didn’t last long, however. Prior to the insider’s employment, we had already established that if they did ask any of the questions, they were to answer at least one of them with “yes.”

The reason behind this was simply to see what the store would do in this situation. We already had established that answering “no” gave you the “right” to work, we wanted the other end of the spectrum. On night two, our insider reports that they arrived at the store. Upon entering, they were immediately stopped and asked some questions. Because this was being recorded, we are providing the very questions that were asked. We are also providing the response given by our insider.

The questions

Q: Have you been around anybody who has tested positive for Covid?

A: If I had been, there is no way that I could possibly know, so I’m going to say no. It is important to note that the employer is marked with (Q) while our insider is marked with (A.)

Q: In the past 24 hours, have you been around anybody who has been tested for Covid?

A: Yes.

Q: Wait, you’ve been around somebody who got tested for Covid?

A: Yeah.

Q: Do you know the results of their tests? (Highlighted as this question potentially violates HIPPA.)

A: No, I don’t know their tests results. Why?

Q: Because that means you can’t come into work.

A: What do you mean I can’t come to work, why not?

Q: Because you’re putting the entire store at risk.

A: Uh, okay, that makes no sense but whatever.

It’s important to note a few things within these questions. The first is the redundancy of the first question. If this had not been our insider, but another employee, they would already be at a high risk of exposure, they’re working retail. The second thing to note is what HIPAA says about asking for test results: they aren’t permitted to know what a diagnosis or treatment is. If the test were to be a positive, the employer is not permitted to know this as the patient would be diagnosed with Covid. Branching beyond that, the employer is also not permitted to know what the treatment plan for the said diagnosis is. Essentially, asking this question is a legal situation in the making. With a good attorney, this company could face a rather hefty penalty.

While all of the questions are intrusive, the specific question asking for test results, especially regarding those not employed with the company, is the smoking gun for any “litigation-happy” disgruntled employee. Expanding beyond the questions, we are left with one unanswered question: why the inconsistency?  On the first night of employment, our insider received no questions prior to their shift. However, on the second night, they were questioned. If the employers policy regarding “safety” was so serious, wouldn’t they be asking these intrusive questions prior to every shift?

While this subject, especially now, remains highly controversial, it is one that should be discussed. The question asking, “how far is to far?” is simply not asked enough. In this year alone, we have seen some of the worst violations to our rights than at any point in America’s history. Our right to religious freedom being a primary example. During this time, we saw ministers being arrested simply for refusing to cease with the practice of their religious freedoms, in the way that their religions required. But the violations didn’t start, nor did they end, there. For now, we will simply ask this one question: Will Americans ever say “enough is enough?”

 

Editorial Statement

Due to the backlash on Twitter, we are clarifying that this article is purely opinion. We are asking a question, noted by the title, and are simply responding with our thoughts. While the companies may not be violating HIPAA, by requesting information of people, who are not employed with them, we can at least establish that the privacy of those individuals have been violated.

Another Facebook purge?

This article is very different from anything we’ve written in the past. While our normal policy is to not write anything to which we are directly related, we have been forced to make an exception. Over the past month, I have uploaded three YouTube videos. The videos not only explain the apparent attack on the “War on Corruption” platform, it goes to detail the progressive censorship of my own account. Though I had hoped for a resolution, Facebook has adamantly refused to address any message I’ve sent to them. In fact, they’ve only increased the various forms of censorship to my account and my platform.

Censorship: Phase I

In the beginning, what Facebook had done was nothing more than a slight annoyance. With no explanation, not even a noted policy violation, I had found that my account had been blocked from commenting or replying to political pages. This means that I could not interact with any political figure, this immediately caught my attention. At this point and time, I was still able to comment, reply, and even post to other pages, groups, etc. At this time, I was oblivious to just how far Facebook would take this censorship.

Censorship: Phase II

After about a week of dealing with the original block, Facebook apparently decided that it was time to do additional blocks. Upon trying to post a comment to a group, which I had been able to do the previous day, I found that I had been restricted from doing so. As with the original block, no reason was given explaining why my account had been restricted. The censorship wouldn’t end here. If it did, this article wouldn’t exist. Within twenty-four hours of this new restriction, I was restricted from commenting and replying to all pages and groups. However, at this point and time, I was still able to post on the “WoC” page, though commenting and replying had now been restricted.

Censorship: Phase III

For the next few weeks, I progressively became agitated over the restriction. On top of running this media platform, I compose and sell music online. At this point and time, this had remained untouched by the nefarious goons of Facebook. However, War on Corruption had now been completely restricted from me. I could no longer post, comment, reply, or even send private messages from the platform’s page. It was, at this point that we decided to begin the process of removing WoC from Facebook completely. During this period, Facebook added yet another new restriction. Not only was I unable to post, comment, reply, or send PM’s, I now could no longer join or leave groups. Worst yet, Facebook wasn’t even finished playing this illegal form of censorship.

Censorship: Phase IV

With this, we are now up to date with the current situation. At this point, Facebook has removed my ability to post, comment, and reply from my personal profile. Furthermore, the page I have, to which I promote my side gig of music, has also been slammed by the social media giant. This means that, on two different platforms, Facebook has not only censored me, but they’ve even cut a form of my income: music. But it doesn’t end there. Out of our team of seven, five of us have been targeted in this exact same manner, all without reason or explanation. Though all of us have tried to appeal it, the results are the same. The appeal process itself has been restricted from all of us.

This means that while we have the option to appeal, should we attempt to do so it will fail to go through; Facebook will never even know that we’ve tried to fight it. As of now, our platform is being operated by two individuals of our team, the only two who have not been targeted with this illegal act. Meanwhile, I continue my search for a civil rights attorney. Not only for our team, but for the various other platforms, and individuals, targeted by Facebook.

Conclusion

With much discussion, we do have a lead into what instigated the censorship: I was critical of a specific political figure, one that Facebook supports. With their censorship, they’ve not only shown how far they will go to stop anybody who opposes their political views, they have demonstrated how far they will go to silence any journalist who speaks against those to which they support.

We aren’t writing this article to bring awareness to what is happening to our platform, we are writing this to warn other journalists, and truth seekers, of what Facebook is willing to do to silence them. We have full expectation that Facebook will shut us down. Since the time of the initial restriction, we have watched as our platform stats spiraled into oblivion. With this, we have absolutely no doubt that, much like our team, our platform is being shadow banned by the site.

During what many call the “purge,” Facebook wiped out over a dozen media platforms from their site. Among them: “Freedom Though Project,” who had well over a million followers. The habitual pattern of Facebook is to target independent media, why not? They can’t buy us off unlike the corporate giants of the media world. While Facebook continues to hold its position of being a “private” company, this is factually untrue. Facebook had ceased being a private company when they entered the public domain, the Stock Market. While this has many financial benefits for the site, it has a lot of legal disadvantages. Among them, violating constitutional rights.

Though we have no expectation of the platform surviving this, on Facebook at least, we have begun moving to other sites. Below, are links to our new locations. We hope to see you there just as we hope that Facebook will cease this unjust activity.

MeWe

Rumble

Flote

Minds

Parler

 

Evading accountability: The report

In law enforcement, report writing is essential. Not only does it provide information involving various situations, it also works as a legal document, which can be used within the court system. On the dark side of things, this simple report can actually work in getting an officer out of trouble. Though it sounds farfetched, it’s not. Today, I am going to reveal to everybody how that can work. This isn’t coming from researched information. instead, this is coming from first hand information resulting from my time working within the system.

When writing a report, especially in instances to which use of force is used, the way the report is written can help or hurt that officer. This fact is so important that departments devote an entire training course on how reports are to be written. Included within that training is how to avoid having that report come back on the officer. The best way to explain this is to simply provide you a scenario.

In this example, we have a victim who has been body slammed by an officer. The victim was compliant and unarmed. Now, if the officer was being honest, the report would read something like this:

On (date) I intercepted (Victim’s name,) regarding complaints of (situation.) The individual was complying to orders when officer (name) proceeded to use less than lethal force. In this force, the individual was slammed to the ground, at which time they were cuffed.

Now, the way the above report is written, will vary depending on the officer. However, this version of events isn’t what people generally see. As you can imagine, the above would place fault for any injuries onto the department, as well as the officer. This is why the police are trained on how to word their reports. For this reason, you will never see the above report. However, what you will see is this:

On (date) I intercepted (Victim’s name,) regarding complaints of (situation.) The individual wasn’t complying  to orders. at this point, officer (name) proceeded to assist (name) to the ground and cuffed.

Notice the wording. In a report, rather than stating that the individual was “body-slammed,” the police will simply state that they “assisted” a person to the ground. This may not sound like a big deal but in the courts, that could mean the difference between doing your job and being charged with assault. Should the victim sue the department, this report would again be used to protect the officers involved.

This tactic is used in virtually every encounter that involves police. It doesn’t just include them, however. Every division of law enforcement, including the correctional system, utilize this method of report writing. In situations where an officer does make a report implicating abuse from other officers, another system of misinformation is utilized. The “Blue Brotherhood,” which we will be writing about in the near future, cannot be violated without consequence. An officer who writes a report, placing fault on a department or another officer, is faced with two separate situations.

To begin with, the officer will not be able to submit their report. When attempting to do so, the department will simply refuse to accept it until they modify it. Once the report has been altered, using the “appropriate” words, it can then be submitted. However, this doesn’t change the fact that this officer had violated the blue code. From this point forward, they face a real possibility of being targeted by not only other officers, but by those in charge.

The departments are about covering themselves, even if that means covering up their tracks. Because investigations are conducted by “internal affairs,” the methods used for writing these reports are never questioned. As a result, there is no accountability. Furthermore, officers who generally violate policy, or even the law, face no consequences for doing so. For this, and many other reasons, the way to which these reports are written do matter. As I said, it can come back to haunt the officer if done incorrectly.

Shoot first, ask later: Linden Cameron shooting review

You have most likely heard of the Linden Cameron situation. Cameron is a 13-yo child, living in Salt Lake City, UT., who was, back in September, shot by “highly” trained officers. This is an article that we had been sitting on for sometime now. While we enjoy critiquing law enforcement, we had decided that it...

This content is for Basic and Gold Status members only.
Login Join Now

The police mentality

We continue our journey into exposing the legal system and its various forms of corruption. So far, we have exposed an incompetent police department and its chief, how law enforcement evades accountability with report writing, and how being innocent of a crime still means guilt. With these things being exposed, it is now time that we expose the mentality of the police. If you believe this mentality is disturbing in public, behind the scenes will be even more shocking. While our platform, and specific members of our team, have been targeted because of these articles, it only furthers our reasons for writing them in the first place. In this article we are not only going to be talking about law enforcement but also revisiting the Department of Corrections.

 

Bully Pride

This is the most recorded aspect of law enforcement, next to what appears to be the random shooting of civilians. We see it all the time, a power tripping cop going on a warpath. We have also seen how these events generally end. However, while this is what when they interact with the public, we don’t see what happens behind closed doors.

You wouldn’t think that other officers would be a target of such behavior; you would be wrong. Law enforcement, though they deny it, has what is called the “Blue Brotherhood.” Granted, this sounds like something from a mafia movie, but there is a good reason for that. In law enforcement, there are two types of officers: those who are “in” the brotherhood and those who aren’t. When it comes to this, you don’t want to be that guy who isn’t in it. Officers who find themselves in the “out,” find that their jobs become extremely difficult. They find themselves targets of other officers, supervisors, and even those within upper management. Basically, those who are not in the brotherhood, or violate it’s “code,” have no means of help from within the agency.

This mentality doesn’t just apply to the police, it also applies to the Department of Corrections, a harsh reality that was verified by our lead journalist, who once worked for this very system. Officers who are targeted find themselves alone and isolated within the very place they work. Harassment and bullying becomes extreme, until they finally give in and simply resign. Among the things that may happen to a targeted officer include: pay being withheld, false internal investigations from superiors, fabricated write-ups, and the list goes on. The ultimate goal is to push the officer into resigning. Though it would be easier to terminate that officer, termination means they could file unemployment while resigning makes that nearly impossible. Even if the officer resigns, the harassment doesn’t end there.

Once the officer resigns, they are immediately “blacklisted.” Blacklisting, to put it into simple terms, is a malicious method of ensuring that the former officer cannot obtain another law enforcement job. They are often put into a computer system, marked with “do not hire.” Should another agency contact the former place of employment, all they have to say is that he/she is not hirable, the blue brotherhood does the rest.

Bullying isn’t just subjected to the few good officers we have in this country. Inmates, who find themselves living within the prison systems, also become targets. While these individuals are in the prisons for a reason, it does not condone how they are treated by the officers working the facility. Within the Department of Corrections, there is a universal mentality: “we will take the word of an officer over an inmate.” This mentality immediately puts the inmate at a complete disadvantage. If the inmate is being targeted by an officer, files a complaint to which that officer denies the accusation, it becomes a case closed situation. No further investigation, nothing more is done.

Behind the scenes, officers have been known to joke, laugh, and even mock inmates, or those arrested. In one situation, our lead journalist had witnessed a conversation to which an officer laughed about body slamming a woman to the ground. Though the woman had to be taken to a medical ward for her injuries, that apparently only made the situation funnier for this officer. What’s worst about this? To this day, that officer remains employed with D.O.C.

Complete control

If you’ve ever looked at a Facebook profile belonging to an officer, you may notice how bland it is. There generally is a serious lack of information. Furthermore, they are cautious as to what they post. There is a reason for this. It’s not because the officer is in fear, though the department uses a fear tactic against them. The reason for this is because of the amount of control the departments have within the personal lives of its officers. All law enforcement agencies, including D.O.C. have policies that tell the officer what is allowed to be posted, what is forbidden, and what can get them fired. For instance, if the officer slams another department, or their own, that is grounds for punishment. Not only will the department force that officer, generally under duress, to remove the post, they could face further consequences. Demotion, pay withheld, write-ups are just a few examples of what that officer could face.

Law enforcement agencies control the behaviors of their officers with fear, intimidation, and various threats. On the flip side to this, officers within D.O.C do the same to the inmates, who are unlucky enough to find themselves within their facilities. On both ends of this spectrum, retaliation is a very real possibility. Those who dare to speak out, rather it be an officer or an inmate, often find themselves being made examples of. For the officers, the consequences could mean the loss of pay, targeted harassment from other officers, termination (or the threat of it,) and so fourth. For inmates, it’s almost the same aside the termination. For them, the possibility of being thrown into a segregation (SHU, Isolation, “The hole,” etc.,) is more than enough motive to keep them silent and obedient. While we often criticize every officer who works within these departments, most people are completely oblivious to what the “good cops” have to endure. We often wonder why they remain silent, why they rarely take action, and why they do nothing to make change. Unfortunately, this is the reason behind that.

Journalism vs. Facebook

At this point, I’m not even going to pretend to be surprised that this article would eventually come. In fact, I doubt that anybody who reads it would be. Facebook is a company that has a notorious history of censoring people. Rather it be for political reasons, what they classify as “spam,” or simply cleaning house of freelance journalists, Facebook has long since established its guilt. However, for the company, this guilt has not come without a price. With multiple lawsuits, one would think the company would make a few policy changes.  This has not been the case. If anything, Facebook appears to be tightening the reigns on the very policies that have gotten them sued in the first place.

On my personal profile, I have multiple freelance journalists. You maybe wondering what we all have in common, why I would even mention them. The one common ground we all share is that all of our accounts have been, in some way, censored by Facebook. Furthermore, when conducting this censorship, we are given no explanation as to why.

Though Facebook has restricted my account, notice that they do not give an actual reason as to why.

On 10/20/2020,  the journalist/founder of the platform “Discuss Global,” received a message like the one photographed above. in less than twenty four hours, I also received a message indicating that my account had been “restricted.” According to Facebook’s message, I had violated a policy. However, as you can see above, there is no example of what policy was violated, nor is there a copy of the violating post/comment. For those who have been on the platform for awhile, may recall the “journalistic purge.” This purge was the mass removal of dozens of independent journalistic platforms. Among these, “Cop Block” “The Daily Haze,” and “The free thought project.” It is almost as though Facebook is attempting to take down any journalist who is critical of Trump, something that I have in common with the other targeted journalists on my “friends” list.

Though I am given the option to appeal, doing so only brings up this error. This same event occurred when other journalists attempted to appeal.

While Facebook has given us the ability to appeal this “violation,” you can see for yourself what that appeal process brings. While Facebook continues to violate the rights of independent journalists, who don’t share their political views, earlier this year, the social media giant lost a class action lawsuit. you can read here for more information into that.

It’s commonly stated that Facebook is the perfect example of how socialism works. If you speak out against anything they support, they silence you. Perhaps, with all the lawsuits, Facebook should consider looking into their own policies and how they’re enforced before violating the rights of anybody who speaks out against their political agendas. Although this can be prevented, it would require that people take a stance against the platform.