In September of last year, the Zionist social media page Facebook engaged in electoral meddling by arbitrarily banning the large accounts of radical nationalist parties Forza Nuova and CasaPound.
In a rare victory for free speech in the West, Judge Stefania Garrisi found that Facebook had violated the rights of CasaPound in civil court in early December. Mark Zuckerberg's behemoth has not only been legally compelled to reactivate CasaPound's page (which has 100s of thousands of followers), but compensate them with 800 Euros for every day they were banned and pay their €15,000 in lawyer fees.
Roberto Fiore of Forza Nuova is hoping to get a similar ruling next week, in line with this precedent.
In America, where dissidents have no practical free speech rights, people are banned every day from internet platforms with no reason given. There are few solutions to this problem since much of the cyber real estate online is run by a small group of monopolies and their oligarchic shareholders, who openly bribe US politicians and think-tanks on the left and right.
This extends beyond social media. This publication has come under attack recently by tech moguls, who by and large do not respect freedom of the press. We have appealed the complaints and are awaiting a response.
Stay Connected with Us
Currently, the debate on internet free speech is trapped in a "kosher sandwich." Last Sunday, the Zionist hardliner Sacha Baron Cohen used his appearance at the Golden Globes to attack Facebook for not doing enough to ban imaginary "racists" and "anti-Semites" on the highly censored platform. This is in line with a speech Cohen gave at the last Anti-Defamation League conference claiming that Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg are allowing nationalists to use their services.
Looking at legal documents and statements Facebook and its lawyers have made on the Italian ruling, the concerned Cohen vs free speech absolutist Zuckerberg "debate" is a fraud. Zuckerberg's company is vowing to appeal and will bitterly fight for its right to censor political speech.
According to Zuckerberg's representatives, CasaPound and Forza Nuova, two legal political parties that have held political offices, are "dangerous organizations" due to the fact that they "celebrate Mussolini," which Silicon Valley says violates their rules. Other reasons Facebook lists for banning these two groups: images of members Roman saluting, promoting "hate" against protected (non-European) groups, "threats" to violent anarchist groups and the use of "banned symbols," like the Celtic Cross or Fasces, perhaps even the party flags themselves.
When Italian reporters pressed Facebook on what specifically these organizations could do to obey the rules, representatives for the company refused to give any specifics, saying that they don't want CasaPound and FN to be able to "evade" bans.
Tech companies keep their terms of service vague on purpose because the point isn't to censor obscenity, slurs or even "hate speech," it is to block anti-establishment politicians around the world from being able to campaign fairly. In Europe, this is especially a big problem because many groups Jewish billionaires in California believe should not have a right to run for office are actually electorally competitive in the proportional representation system.
In America, millions of people are concerned about online censorship, but the outrage has been largely suppressed by conservative outlets with the exception of Tucker Carlson's nightly program. Last October, Donald Trump and Mark Zuckerberg met for a private dinner organized by Peter Thiel, and the president hasn't touched upon the issue disproportionately impacting his supporters much since then. So far, the only substantial challenge to this systematic meddling is Democratic Presidential contender Tulsi Gabbard's pending lawsuit.
For all the talk of Italian corruption, this appears to be the first time a judge in a neo-liberal plutocracy has swung their gavel in favor of grassroots patriots against the tyranny of big tech. Let's see if Facebook is able to affirm its "right" to control who can or cannot campaign for office in foreign lands on appeal.