Tag Archives: censorship

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

 

Police department exposed

update

The Chief of police reached out to us, though she didn’t exactly answer our question. Below is that correspondence.

Chief: What are your questions about our policies?

WoC: Our platform was recently informed that your department rejected a potential application, partly on the grounds of an accusation to which an individual was found innocent. We know this because we were able to pull up this disposition. Though the individual involved has declined to comment on this, I thought I would touch base with you guys and find out how that was able to be used against this person, regardless of this disposition?

Chief: The individual you are talking about KNOWS why he was turned down. You have to tell the truth. I will be glad to talk to you I person. I will be in the office Monday.

At this point, the conversation was abruptly ended, she has not responded since this message.

—————————————

It was inevitable that this article would be written. In our current trend of exposing the “justice” system for all the glamorous corruption, it shouldn’t be to hard to conceive that we would begin targeting specific law enforcement agencies. Today, we are going after a small Oklahoma town, Earlsboro Police Department. This department was brought to our attention by a former applicant, denied a job on the basis of a charge, to which they were determined innocent. Upon conducting my own research into this department, it’s not all that surprising that they would had denied the individual’s application upon those grounds. After all, in 2018, the department was so corrupt it had gained state wide attention. Let’s review the Earlsboro Police Department.

History of abuse and corruption

As we have stated, this small town department is riddled with a past of corruption. In 2015, officer Michael Young, who is believed to still be with the department, targeted a freelance journalist. The journalist, associated with the organization “Cop Block,” had been filming the officer’s interaction with another citizen. To see that video, just click this link.  The situation, based upon the video, is rather disturbing.

It shows officer Young parked in front of a residence, lights enabled. Upon leaving, he does a U-turn. When getting to the corner, where the journalist is located, he stops at the stop sign. However, he doesn’t simply drive away. Instead, Young sits at this sign, blocking potential traffic. This goes on for several minutes.  Finally, after blocking the road for several minutes, officer Young decides to engage the journalist. The fact that the officer chose to even engage somebody, filming on a public road, is already questionable. But as we’ve said, this department doesn’t exactly operate with the legal scope.

More controversy hit the department in 2018. The former chief of police, Troy Magers found himself the centerfold of this event. Though this controversy was aimed at the private life of Magers, it spoke loudly for his character. So, we are going to give a quick rundown of the situation.

The former chief had rented a house. Upon leaving the residence, the home owner found it to be a complete wreck. Trash, feces, urine, roaches littered the home, it looked as if a hoarder had been living there. Though there is much debate as to why he was removed, one allegation is it was over sexual harassment claims and abuse of power. Though we haven’t been able to confirm the reasons leading up to his removal, we did find that he has an extensive history of misdemeanors and civil litigations dating back to the 1990’s. This leads us to our current question: If the EPD allowed this man to apart of the department, why did their current Chief of Police, Candie, deny a man who was found to be innocent of his charge?

Allegations against the former Chief of police didn’t just stop at how he destroyed a rental home. We were able to make contact with a man who had lived in the town during this time. According to this contact, the former chief had made a point of targeting a young woman and her children. In fact, the harassment had become so severe that she had allegedly bought a gun to protect her family from the police. Ultimately, after the officer attempted to remove her children, she and her family, was forced to move from their home.

We reached out to the department, in attempt to get answers. However, what we found was that any comment we left was  hastily removed. To ensure our question was seen, and hopefully answered, we left it for them on a Google review (pictured below.) One thing we noticed when looking at their reviews, was their rating. 2.6 out of 5. While it’s not uncommon to see lower scores with any law enforcement agency, this is still remarkably low. Reviews accuse officers of theft  to inaction in a potential life threatening situation.

Because they continue to delete any questions asked by the WoC team, we made our questions in a very public way. Doing it like this also ensures that the department cannot delete it.
The record showing the background of the EPD former police Chief, Troy Magers.

We find it interesting that a man with such a record of misdemeanors and civil suits was qualified to be a chief, but a man who was innocent wasn’t qualified to join the department.  While the department has allegedly pulled the “legalities” card, when we review the history of their previous chief, that is something we find to be rather suspicious. While the department has now become more active within its local community, it doesn’t necessarily excuse it from its past. When policies are being created on the spot, when officers, who still remain with the department, hold a history of abuse and intimidation,  we have more than enough reason to believe that nothing has truly changed.

It is unfathomable to believe that such a small department could be more corrupt than those in bigger cities. While we don’t believe the corruption has stopped, simply changed hands, it does appear that the department has made some drastic changes. While we still can’t confirm officer Young’s employment with this specific agency, we are told by a source that he maybe working for another department.  Allegedly the entire department was wiped clean, alongside Chief Magers. According to sources, this was brought about from accusations of “sexual misconduct.” However, neither the city of Earlsboro, nor it’s police department, will confirm this. One thing that is clear is they are still enforcing a non-existent law. There is no law barring a person employment purely based upon an accusation. After all, accusations happen all the time, it’s the establishment of guilt that matters. Because our journalist does live within the same state as this department, they can rest assure that we are going to be watching them very closely in the days to come.

India based Media platform files false copyright claim

It goes to say that there are many predatorial media platforms. Distorting or outright fabricating truths is not an uncommon element. However, you would never expect one of these platforms to target an aspiring musician, simply trying to share their musical compositions. However, that is exactly what Manorama News TV, a platform based in India, did.

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

Is BLM about equality?

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, since its founding, has held firm to the claim that it fights for equality, against police brutality, and various other issues that effect the black community. While tensions between the police and general public have been at an all time high, it has only enhanced the problem created by...

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

The Sophie Case

Over the years, I have come across some horrific CPS cases. None can even compare to the case that I’m writing about within this article. When looking into this case, it’s clear that there is a serious problem within the family court system. Sadly, for this 9yo child, there doesn’t appear to be any form of help from the very agency that was charged with protecting her from the very situation she is currently enduring. Before we dive into this, please be aware that this article may have some material that is graphic. If you are a sexual abuse victim, and are easily triggered, it is strongly advised to skip reading any further. Our goal in sharing this information is to try and get this girl some assistance, before it’s to late.

The Accusation

As with any sexual abuse case, there is always the accuser, the one who brings the abuse to light. In this instance, Sophie, a 9yo child, is the accuser. According to the child, she is constantly subjected to domestic violence, sexual grooming, and most recently molestation and rape. According to her, these are crimes being committed by her mother’s boyfriend, Jacob. However, the plot twist to all of this comes the other portion of her accusation: not only is the mother aware of abuses, she partakes in it, and has even encouraged it. While the accusations are being contested, it is very unlikely that this child is simply fabricated this. The evidence comes in how her story has not only remained consistant, but video evidence that clearly demonstrate how the girl reacts to going back to her primary residence. Simply put, this is not natural.

The results

Due to the incompetence of the family court judge, the grandmother, and Sophie’s own mother, the father began a campaign in attempt to rescue his daughter. While a GoFundMe has been started, in attempt to raise money for legal fees, the family court judge is accused of abusing her powers. In a diabolical twist, she is allegedly trying to prevent the father from having access to any donated funds. If you aren’t aware, this could be classified as a constitutional violation as she is impeding his ability to gather funds for legal representation, something to which he is entitled to. As all of this is going on, the father had done a livestream. Forced by the judge, who cited “mental trauma” to the child, the father was forced to remove the videos. However, there is a mirrored version which can be watched here.

Currently, although the allegations arose from a 9yo child, it appears that she is being ignored. Upon learning of the public outcry, the judge, who has shown herself to be incompetent, placed a gag order. In a recorded video of the court session, she makes a threat of arressting anybody who continues to share the information. With that thought in mind, our platform clearly was going to challenge that. But this threat leaves the question as to rather or not the judge can do this. Simply put, no. While the judge can place a gag order on the family, this judge is trying to put an order against anybody who speaks of the situation. This brings up a lot of jurisdictional problems. Meanwhile, the court system, and CPS, accuse the girl of lying. Sadly, this is an all to common occurance.

With no CPS, court, or even police assistance, there is much concern for the safety and life of this young child. Though there has been a court, relating to this very subject, the judge still found it to be in the “best” interest of the child if she remained with her mother. This entire case has shown not only incompence of this judge, but also the incompetence of the police and CPS workers involved. What’s even more appauling is the one man who is trying to rescue this girl, is also the man the court is threatning with jail. Perhaps, in this case, it is the judge, caseworkers, mother, and boyfriend who should obtain such a delightful concrete room.

Chris Hansen sparks controversy

Famous journalist, Chris Hansen, has apparantly enraged many of the people who came to trust him. The famous journalist, known for targeting child predators, had allegedly sold the rights for his Onision investigation. While Hansen has claimed it to be a move to gain more attention, the online community is simply not buying it. In one instance, Hansen even blocked an individual who was critical of the act.

Being critical of Hansen, Youtuber “Deity” makes his feelings known. He would later be blocked for this tweet.
In a tweet, “Deity” shows that he had been blocked by the journalist.

Controversies

Although Hansen has had years of experience as a television journalist, he hasn’t been without financial problems. Rather it be millions worth of debt, an arrest, it seems that things haven’t been fairing well for the journalist. It is for this reason, many within the online community speculated that the Onision investigation was a money ploy.

Although Hansen brought a form of momentum to the Onision situation, he hadn’t actually stated any facts that weren’t already available. At one point, Hansen attempted to interview the infamous Youtuber only to be met with local police. Meanwhile, some within the online community speculated this to be a problicity stunt.

Behind the scenes of the investigation, there was a boiling pot of controversy. While much of it was focused on his former employee, Vincent Nicotra, Chris wasn’t spared. Nicotra was infamously known for filing false DMCA claims, doxxing, hate speech, and so fourth. While all of this had been made public, it would take months for Hansen to act. Upon removing Nicotra, things cooled down a bit, but that wouldn’t last.

During the investigation, Hansen made claims that the FBI were investigating. However, when probed, he appeared to be evasive only stating that, “these things take time.” For a community who already felt betrayed, for many reasons, this wasn’t flying very well. The controversy didn’t end on that note, however.

Hansen selling the Onision story seems to have boiled the pot dry. Questions regarding the victims, who entrusted him with their stories, has become a common concern. It also raises questions into Hansen’s current investigation on “Dahvie Vanity.” In this aspect, people can’t help but wonder rather or not Chris will sell this story also.

While selling a story, even if it brings controversy, is common, blocking those who are critical is questionable at best. As a journalist, we are constantly under a microscope, people awaiting for us to slip just so they can berate us. However, doing a move that creates controversy and then blocking those who question it, leads me to question Hansen’s journalistic integrity.

Racism rises amongst COVID fears

Over the years, I have learned to never be surprised as to how low people will go. For this reason, I am not at all shocked by the fact the Native people are being slammed with an onslaught of racism. While this has been going on for sometime now, it is only now that I choose to address it.

Since the start of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, it has been no secret that the reservations have been slammed. While much of this can be attributed to the lack of available medical supplies, the bigger problem is in how the Native Americans are generally treated. This brings up the very reason to which I write this article.

In a recent Facebook post, a New Mexico native man makes a rather serious allegation against one of their local Home Depot stores. In his post, “graywolf” accuses a Home Depot assistant manager, Sandra Rodriguez, of posting a racially based statement. The statement, which is shown below, reads as follows:

Go back to your nasty Rez with your diseases.

Sandra Rodriguez
Assistant Manager
Home Depot, Gallup NM

In his post, “Graywolf” is calling for people to call the corporate office. As a matter of fact, we are too. Pandemic or not, there is absolutely no excuse for this sort of behavior, especially when it stems from those working to serve the public in any capacity. During the past few months we have seen the best of society. However, we have also seen the worst aspects of it. If you are against this sort of behavior, and would like to help with “graywolf’s” campaign of reporting this woman, the information is below.

The Home Depot
Contact information
Main:
(505)726-2362

Corporate number 1 (800) 466-3337
The Home Depot/Customer service

COVID-19: Reality Check

For months now, we have seen abuse from the government unlike anything before. While most Americans are perfectly fine with the loss of their first, fourth, and even sixth amendment rights, some are beginning to wake up. As a result of this, social disobedience is quickly becoming a common trend. With so much confusion, who is in the right?

The introduction of COVID-19 introduced more than a new potential threat, it brought out mass fear and even hysteria. As the government began learning about the virus, they implimented some rather debatable “safety procedures.” Social distancing, masks, that sort of thing has now become common practice. However, many debate as to rather or not they went to far.

First amendment

Under the first amendment, all Americans are granted the freedom to practice their religions. What this means is the government has no legal grounds to interfere with this, or other, rights. However, since the COVID-19 situation began, we have seen that very ordeal unfold. In several cases, those who have dared to break the “law” of not going to church, were met with arrest. How is this possible? A simple loophole is all it takes, more on that later.

On social medias, such as Facebook and Youtube, those who are speaking out against the governments’ actions, are finding themselves censored, ability to post/comment blocked, or outright banned. In a controversial move, Facebook has gone as far as to form its own “Supreme court.” The intent of this is to determine what is, or is not, allowed on their site. However, this has lead to many conspiracy theories.

Fourth Amendment

Under the fourth amendment, all citizens have the right to be secure in their persons, homes, and property. At this point, we may as well just rule this one a dead right. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen what happens to those who dare to defy their government overlords. While initially, the “safety protocols” were mere suggestions, people have been brutally beaten and arrested by police. Their crime? Daring to run their businesses.

There are many articles discussing how the police have arrested business owners for literally committing no crime. By violating the “recomendations,” and being arrested for it, proves that these are not just suggestions. Furthermore, they demonstrate the more disturbing image at hand. It was Adolf Hitler who once said:

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” For many, this is what’s happening. Of course, when it’s a $1000+ fine for not wearing a suggestion on your face, it does seem plausible.

Sixth Amendment

The right to a speedy trial. Unless you’ve been living in a cave, you already know that this has been absent. Upon getting arrested, one could expect to sit in jail for an undetermined amount of time, with no courtdate. Why? Because the courts shutdown. While this is starting to change, it doesn’t change the fact that this right may had potentially been violated. Of course, this is just another cog in the political wheel.

What we have seen is nothing less than government operated terrorism on its people. Criminals are being released from jails/prisons over alleged COVID fears. However, people are being sent to jail simply for operating their own businesses. Places where facemasks are “mandatory,” don’t even care what you wear on your face. A person can walk aroumd with tissue paper on their face and have no problem.

From what I have seen, this os a game to strip citizens, using fear and false numbers, of their constitutional rights. The worst part of this, we are allowing it. When you really begin to dig into this, the contradictions become very apparant. This situation is no longer about protecting the people or preventing the spread of a virus, which has an approx 3% fatality rate globally. This is a war in which it is the government vs. the people.

Oklahoma sheriff’s department notoriously blocking citizens?

When it comes to the police departments being “above the law,” it should come to no surprise that constitutional laws would be included. For the sheriff’s department, of pottawatomie county, Oklahoma, it seems they have gone balistic with violating the rights of citizens.

Over the past several months, we had recieved multiple complaints regarding this department censoring out citizens who speak against them. Many of the contacts simply want to know if they can legally block them. Well, we did the research and concluded the answer to be no. Let’s dive right into it.

We found multiple articles on this very subject, all aiming at different angles. In July of 2019, the second circuit court had ruled that Donald Trump, being an elected official, could not block citizens on his twitter. Doesn’t apply, you say? Actually, it does. Though the situation is slightly different, the ruling is based on the concept that he is a public official. To extend on this, there is also a ruling by the fourth circuit court, stating public officials cannot block citizens on social media.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, the sheriff is an elected, public, official. That means that a sheriff falls into this category as well. Because they are the lead for their departments, their departments Social Media pages become a public forum. It also means that, like Donald Trump, blocking citizens is a violation to the first amendment.

When looking into the department itself, we found multiple reviews. The comments ranged from buying alcohol while in uniform, unprofessional behaviors, overly aggressive, and wreckless driving, nearly hitting a woman with child. For us, this only served to validate the fact that this department has some serious problems that are not being addressed.

Regardless of the federal and circuit rulings, this department has only shown a complete disregard for its citizens rights, as well as the federal rulings. Via Facebook and Twitter, we reached out to the department. The Facebook results was that of no comment and me being banned from their page. As of this time, we have gotten no response on Twitter.

With only the “share” button available, this demonstrates my ban. When other members of WoC went to this page, the comment section was still displayed.

Port of Seattle officer on leave following video

By now, most of you are probably familiar with the name, Greg Anderson. This, soon to be former officer, was made famous when he posted a video encouraging officers to NOT uphold illegal orders to stay at home. Though the video was met with much praise, including from his department, that has quickly changed.

Anderson, three days after making the viral video, the department he worked for, began demanding the video to be removed. Using various claims, including equipment being identifiable and policy, the intimidation failed. Anderson, who held his ground, was ultimately suspended pending termination due to policy violation.

War on Corruption reached out multiple times to the department, asking what policy was violated. Though the department has read our messages, they blatently refused to reply. With that, we found alternative methods of obtaining their social media policies.

It didn’t take long for us to understand why they refused to respond. Starting at policy 5: 125-POL 2, we found it to be extremely vague. A portion of the policy reads as follows:

Engaging in prohibited speech outlined in this policy may provide grounds for discipline and may be used to undermine or impeach an officer’s testimony in legal proceedings.

The issue here is it leaves the department open to select what language is inapropriate speech. In fact, the closest we get is:

– Make, share, or comment in support of any posting that includes harassment, threats of violence, or similar conduct

– Make, share, or comment in support of any posting that ridicules, maligns, disparages, expresses bias, or disrespect toward any race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, or any other protected class of individuals

– Make, share, or comment in support of any posting that suggests that Department personnel are engaged in behavior reasonably considered to be unlawful or reckless toward public safety

Even the above, in many aspects is vague, leaving it open for the department to utilize the policy as they see fit. Even so, the claims the department made for wanting the video removed seem invalid.

Through the department’s silence to clarify the policy violation, we are under the presumption that they are fully aware that no policy had been violated. In fact, you can read their social media policy Through the department’s silence to clarify the policy violation, we are under the presumption that they are fully aware that no policy had been violated. In fact, you can read their social media policy here.

Should the department decide to respond, we will place it within this article. Until then, it is to our opinion that what is being done is nothing short of an unethical removal of one of the few good officers this country has.