Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Writing • Culture
New Law Sought by Brazil's Lula to Ban and Punish "Fake News and Disinformation" Threatens the Free Internet Everywhere
Many nations seem poised to abandon the core lesson of the Enlightenment: no human institution can or should be trusted to decree Absolute Truth and punish dissent from it
February 25, 2023
post photo preview
Left: Former President Jair Bolsonaro at Alvorada Palace in Brasilia, on November 1, 2022. (Photo by EVARISTO SA/AFP via Getty Images) / Right: President Lula da Silva speaks in Buenos Aires. (Photo by Manuel Cortina/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

A major escalation in official online censorship regimes is progressing rapidly in Brazil, with implications for everyone in the democratic world. Under Brazil's new government headed by President Lula da Silva, the country is poised to become the first in the democratic world to implement a law censoring and banning "fake news and disinformation" online, and then punishing those deemed guilty of authoring and spreading it. Such laws already exist throughout the non-democratic world, adopted years ago by the planet's most tyrannical regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey. 

If one wishes to be generous with the phrase "the democratic world" and include Malaysia and Singapore – at best hybrid "democracies" – then one could argue that a couple other "democratic" governments have already seized the power to decree Absolute Truth and then ban any deviation from it. But absent unexpected opposition, Brazil will soon become the first country unambiguously included in the democratic world to outlaw "fake news" and vest government officials with the power to banish it and punish its authors. 

Last May, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was forced to retreat from its attempt to appoint a "disinformation czar" to oversee what would effectively be its Ministry of Truth. That new DHS agency, at least nominally, was to be only advisory: it would declare truth and falsity and then pressure online platforms to comply by banning that which was deemed by the U.S. Security State to be false. The backlash was so great -- the CIA and company are not exactly world-renown for telling the truth -- that DHS finally claimed to cancel it, though secret documents emerged in October describing the agency's plans to continue to shape online censorship decisions of Big Tech. 

Brazil's law would be anything but advisory. Though the details are still yet to be released, it would empower law enforcement officials to take action against citizens deemed to be publishing statements that the government classifies as "false," and to solicit courts to impose punishment on those who do so.

The Brazilian left is almost entirely united with the country's largest corporate media outlets in supporting this censorship regime (sound familiar?). The leading advocates of this new censorship law include pro-government lawyers, famous pro-Lula YouTube influencers, and even journalists(!). They are now being invited to and feted in "fake news" and "disinformation" conferences in glamorous European capitals sponsored by UN agencies, because the EU is eager to obtain such censorship powers for itself, and sees Brazil as the first test case for whether the public will tolerate such an aggressive acquisition of dissent-suppression authorities by the state. (Recall that the EU itself, at the start of the war in Ukraine, escalated online censorship to an all-new level by making it illegal for any online platform to host Russian-state media outlets; Rumble's refusal to obey France's command to remove RT from its platform forced Rumble to cease broadcasting in France).

Last Sunday, Brazil's largest newspaper, Folha of São Paulo, announced that I had become a regular columnist for the paper (I will likely publish columns every other week, and those with international relevance will be published in English as well). Their offer came after months of rather intense controversy in which I have been vocally denouncing as dangerously authoritarian the regime of censorship and other weapons of dissent-suppression imposed by a member of Brazil's Supreme Court, Alexandre de Moraes. 

Even prior to enactment of this newly proposed law, the online censorship attacks of this single Brazilian judge, acting with the support of the a majority of its Supreme Court, has been so extreme that even liberal American news outlets have published critical articles on him and what they suggests are his lawless and wild censorship binges (including three in The New York Times, one in the Associated Press and another in The Washington Post). One New York Times article – published weeks before the first round of the 2022 presidential race that sent Lula and incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro to a run-off – described the judge's conduct this way: 

Mr. Moraes has jailed five people without a trial for posts on social media that he said attacked Brazil’s institutions. He has also ordered social networks to remove thousands of posts and videos with little room for appeal. And this year, 10 of the court’s 11 justices sentenced a congressman to nearly nine years in prison for making what they said were threats against them in a livestream.

 

The power grab by the nation’s highest court, legal experts say, has undermined a key democratic institution in Latin America’s biggest country as voters prepare to pick a president on Oct. 2.. . . In many cases, Mr. Moraes has acted unilaterally, emboldened by new powers the court granted itself in 2019 that allow it to, in effect, act as an investigator, prosecutor and judge all at once in some cases.

As the AP articles notes, we were the first to reveal one of Judge de Moraes' secret censorship orders, which I obtained and then reported on in an episode of SYSTEM UPDATE, which was viewed by more than half a million people:

placeholder

Despite also being the journalist who – back in 2019 and 2020 – exposed the grave corruption committed by the once-heroic Brazilian judge and prosecutors who imprisoned Lula in 2017 – reporting that won top journalism awards in Brazil, garnered universal praise from the Brazilian left, resulted in an unsuccessful attempt to prosecute me, and ultimately led to Lula's release from prison and restored his eligibility to run for president in 2022 – both my husband David Miranda (a Congressman until last month) and I have, overnight, become among the most reviled figures by Lula's followers. This has been in part due to my increasingly active opposition to growing censorship efforts led by this judge and his left-wing allies, censorship which the Brazilian left and their corporate-media allies support with great fervor and with something close to lock-step unanimity.

Those left-wing attacks against us began when David announced in January, 2022 that he was leaving his left-wing party PSOL – which had long been opposed to PT and Lula – because he objected to the party's decision to support Lula's presidential candidacy in the first round of voting. He instead joined the center-left party PDT in order to support presidential candidate Ciro Gomes. 

Because David was the first national left-wing political official to publicly refuse to support Lula's candidacy in the first-round of voting, it was necessary for PT to make an example of him (and, by extension, of me). The campaign of vilification was deeply personal. Even as a couple accustomed to being the target of such campaigns, the attacks on us from Lula's followers were unlike anything I had seen in terms of vitriol, unrestrained online mob rage, and the kind of bigoted tropes the left pretends it reviles but instantly unleashes against any member (such as David) of the "marginalized groups" the left believes it owns. 

As is true in the U.S., nothing enrages the left and provokes the lowest and most scurrilous attacks more than when a person they believe they own due to their membership in a "marginalized" group who proclaims their independence and right to think critically (in September, I was forced by David's health crisis to petition the election court to withdraw his re-election candidacy, and the new Congress was inaugurated on February 1 without him).

But those already-lowly attacks escalated severely when I became much more vocal about my increasing concern over the country's growing reliance on censorship and due-process-free persecution of PT's opponents. Unlike in the U.S. – where the liberal-left still pays lip service to their support for free speech while clearly acting to subvert it – the Brazilian left barely bothers with this pretense. Many simply acknowledge that they do not believe in free speech, and equate a defense of free speech with fascism. They do so with no apparent recognition of the irony – that the first thing a fascist regime does is ban books and criminalize dissent – and despite the fact that free speech is a right guaranteed by the Brazilian constitution. 

For the globalist order increasingly petrified of internet freedom - they blame online free speech for everything from Brexit and Hillary's defeat to skepticism of health authorities and growing opposition to U.S. support for the proxy war in Ukraine – Brazil has become the perfect test case for seizing state power to censor the internet in the name of stopping "fake news and disinformation." Nothing fosters support for authoritarianism the way fear does, and much of the Brazilian establishment believes they are fighting a new War on Terror. Even with Bolsonaro vanquished for now in Florida, his party in the last election won the most seats in both houses of Congress as well as key governorships across the country.

Just as the Bush/Cheney government exploited the 9/11 attack, and the Biden administration still exploits the January 6 riot, to justify previously unthinkable assaults on core civil liberties, the Brazilian left – in union with the country's establishment – is now exploiting the January 8 invasion of government buildings by a few thousand Bolsonaro supporters to argue that anything and everything is justified in the name of their "war on terrorism" (unlike the 3,000 deaths on 9/11, and the deaths of four Trump supporters on 1/6, nobody died or was grievously injured on January 8 in Brasilia). And using the same playbook of neocons to support their crisis-justified civil liberties attacks, anyone in Brazil who even questions the need for new censorship powers and other attacks on dissidents demanded by the government is accused of being "pro-Terrorist" or an "apologist for fascism" (I honestly never thought I would live to see the day when one stands accused of being pro-facist for opposing censorship rather than supporting it, but such are the times in which we live).

That is why Europe, and large sectors of the U.S. establishment, see Brazil as the perfect laboratory to test how far censorship powers can go. With many Brazilians believing they just suffered their own 9/11 or January 6, all power centers know that the perfect time to seize new authoritarian powers and abridge core liberties is when the population is in a state of fear and terror, and thus willing to sacrifice liberties in exchange for illusory promises of security.

And recall that polling data in the U.S. shows that very large majorities of Democrats (and a disturbingly robust minority of GOP voters) would support a law similar to the one pending in Brazil to empower the state to restrict internet freedom in the name of stopping "misinformation." As Pew found in 2021, 65% of Democrats "say the government should take steps to restrict false information, even if it means limiting freedom of information." Perhaps the First Amendment would be a barrier to implementation of such a law in the U.S., but there is ample public support, especially on the liberal-left, for state censorship of the internet.

A major reason I accepted the offer to become a Folha columnist is that it gives me a significant platform in Brazil to combat what I regard as these increasingly grave attacks on core liberties, not only because they threaten rights of free speech, due process and a free internet in Brazil, but because they threaten all those values far beyond Brazil's borders as well. My reporting on this new "fake news and disinformation" law sought by Lula's government as set forth below includes parts of my first Folha column published last Sunday on the dangers of this newly proposed law, as well as significant new passages I wrote for an international audience and for publication of this new article here on Locals.


 

Ten days before the run-off voting for the 2018 presidential election which sent Bolsonaro into the presidency, Folha reported that an "illegal practice" was being used to help Jair Bolsonaro win that election. "Companies are purchasing large packages of messaging assailing [Lula's] Workers' Party (PT) for mass dissemination on WhatsApp," Folha explained.

Bolsonaro not only denied the story but accused both Folha and PT of spreading Fake News. As Folha noted at the time, Bolsonaro's party "intended to sue" his election-year rival Fernando Haddad of PT. Bolsonaro accused PT of "spreading false news."

Upon winning the presidency, there was no law available to Bolsonaro – similar to the one which Lula's government is now proposing – that would have empowered his government, or judges sympathetic to him, to ban discussion online of Folha's reporting by claiming it was "fake news." But if he did have that power – if the law which PT hopes to implement to govern "fake news" had been in the hands of Bolsonaro's allies – it is very reasonable to suspect they may have used it to suppress those revelations on the ground that, in the view of Bosonaro's supporters, the allegations were "false."

After all, the new law proposed by Lula's government would empower both the judiciary and the equivalent of Brazil's Solicitor General (AGU) to take more aggressive action to combat "fake news" online. Among other new powers, the proposed law would permit "an action by the AGU, a body that legally represents the government, to file legal cases against those it regards as authors of false content." 

In a January 19 interview with Folha, Lula's chief spokesman, Paulo Pimenta, vowed: "we will start to respond more forcefully, more sharply, to information that distorts the truth and is wrong."

Everyone would love to live in a world in which an omnipotent and benevolent power who rules us allows only truthful statements, while it accurately identifies and then outlaws all false claims. Such a world sounds like paradise: no errors, only truth. Who could possibly be opposed to that? 

Unfortunately, human nature makes such a world impossible. If history teaches any lesson, it is clear that treating human leaders or institutions as capable of god-like infallibility and super-human wisdom is quite dangerous. 

Humans have tried all this before. For a thousand years prior to the Enlightenment, most societies were ruled by omnipotent institutions – monarchies, empires, churches – that claimed to possess absolute truth and therefore outlawed any views that deviated on the ground that they were "false."

The core innovation of the Enlightenment, one of the greatest intellectual advancements of human liberation, was that all human institutions are fallible, that they endorse false claims either due to error or corruption, and that every individual must always retain the right to question and challenge their orthodoxies. 

In sum, there is no such thing as an institution of authority that can be trusted to decree what Truth is. The oldest indigenous societies, far from Europe, had already internalized this lesson, having discarded faith in centralized authorities in favor of decentralized power and dispersed democratic values. And what is now called "the democratic world" is founded in the view that secular truths are ascertained not by decrees of monarchs, clerics and emperors, but by free and open debate driven by human reason and the sacred right to dissent.


 

Since the start of the COVID pandemic, it has been bizarre to hear left-liberals throughout the democratic world proclaim their devotion to science while simultaneously demanding that all "false statements" about science be banned. Science cannot exist if one assumes that permanent truth has already been apprehended. Science requires the acknowledgement that even its most brilliant and accomplished experts may have embraced grave errors and faulty assumptions. Scientific truth is unearthed only by permitting challenges to prevailing orthodoxies, not by prohibiting let alone outlawing them. 

To say that one believes in science while demanding that "falsity" be banned is like saying that one believes in religion while demanding that prayer be banned. Scientific discovery, like all intellectual endeavors, only advances by a process of trial and error, by challenging and objecting to prevailing beliefs so that error can be uncovered. To ban "false claims" is not to honor and strengthen science but to vandalize and kill it. 

From the start of the COVID pandemic, many of the claims made by the world's most prestigious experts and trusted institutions have turned out to be false or uncertain. As just one example, the World Health Organization announced in February and March of 2020 that asymptomatic people should not wear masks and that doing so could make a COVID infection worse by "trapping" the virus. In April, the recommendation was the opposite: everyone should wear masks regardless of one's health condition. 

In 2018, any Brazilian "fact-checker" would have affirmed as true the statement that Lula was a "thief," as he was convicted of multiple corruption felonies, which Brazilian appellate courts affirmed on appeal. By 2022, the situation was reversed as Brazilian courts nullified that conviction (in large part based on the revelations of our reporting regarding the corruption on the part of Lula's judge and prosecutors). As a result, Brazil's election courts in the 2022 campaign banned campaign materials calling Lula a "thief" on the ground that they were false. 

In other words, what was considered Gospel about Lula in 2018 became prohibited Falsity just four years later. That is the unyielding, universal pattern driving human intellectual advancement: what is deemed Truth one minute becomes shameful and discredited the next.

For that reason, at the heart of every censor resides one of the most toxic human traits: hubris. It is astonishing to watch some humans believe that they have managed to liberate themselves from this historical cycle of misperception, misapprehension and error, and instead believe that they have become owners of the Truth. Even with the best of motives, only hubris would lead people to have so much confidence in their truth-finding abilities that they would want the state to make it a crime to question or deny their views of the world. And yet no other mentality than this one can account for someone supporting the kind of law to ban and punish "fake news and disinformation" as the new Brazilian government and its allies in Congress are on the verge of adopting.

Error is the inevitable condition of even the most well-intentioned humans. But most humans do not operate with the purest of motives. Humans with great power are highly likely to abuse that power absent very serious limits. Even if you believe you finally found political leaders with almost god-like virtue, who can be trusted not to abuse such powers when suppressing ideas as "false," it is extremely likely such laws will be transferred in the future to new leaders with different ideologies and who are more human than the deity you have been fortunate enough to have found.

And as has been widely reported, the new industry to define "disinformation" is largely a scam. It is funded by a small handful of liberal billionaires, and employs highly politicized actors who claim a fake expertise – "disinformation experts" – to masquerade their ideological views as science. Any attempts by the state to make "fake news and disinformation" illegal will almost certainly rely on this fraudulent industry to justify their censorship decisions by claiming that their assessment of truth and falsity has been supported by "experts."


 

If Brazil implements this proposed law, it will not be the first time a government is empowered to ban "fake news" on the internet. Other countries live under governments which have been given the power to ban journalism and commentary on the ground that it is judged by the state to be dangerous, to be false, to incite violence, or to foster social instability or even revolutions against the prevailing order. 

Regimes with such laws are the planet's most despotic: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Singapore and Qatar (whose law, entitled "Crimes against the internal security of the State," allows the state to "impose up to five years imprisonment on anyone who spreads rumors or false news with bad intent"). 

There, the outcome is predictable. All dissent against government orthodoxies and criticism of its leaders are quickly labeled "false" or "dangerous" or designed to incite violence and are censored on that ground. Last May, the UN, warning about a newly proposed "anti-disinformation" law in Turkey, "expressed concern after the vote by the Turkish parliament of a law that could imply the imprisonment of up to three years of journalists and users of 'social media' for the dissemination of 'fake news'."

Those attacks on dissent using these "Fake News" laws are not due to "abuse of a good law." They are, instead, the inevitable, arguably the intended, outcome of such a law. No political faction is immune from believing that any dissent from its core pieties is not just misguided but deliberately false and even dangerous.

The dissent-suppressing persecution where such laws have been allowed to flourish are entirely predictable. Only in authoritarian cultures, or ones that wish to return to the pre-Enlightenment days of full submission to institutions of authority, would citizens trust political, governmental or religious officials with the power to declare absolute truth and then, using the force of law, bar any expression that deviates from it.

These abuses of "fake news" laws happen in those countries where those laws have been adopted not because those countries are different than ours, but because they are the same. All powerful leaders, even well-intentioned ones, will be highly tempted to ban dissent on the grounds that it is dangerous or "false." 

Humans, by our very nature, are incapable of acquiring absolute truth about politics or science even with the best of motives. What one generation believes to be proven Truth (the earth is the center of the universe) is demonstrated by subsequent generations to be gross error, though such truth-tellers often suffer severe persecution when "falsity" is rendered illegal (which is why Socrates, Copernicus, Galileo, Voltaire and many others like them wasted years attempting to avoid prison or worse, often unsuccessfully, due to laws banning ideas deemed "false" by the reigning authorities of their era). The intellectual history of humanity has one indisputable lesson: humans will always err when claiming they have discovered such absolute truth that nobody should be permitted to doubt or challenge their claims.

It is likely for these reasons that "the large portion" of the Brazilian legal specialists consulted by Folha about Lula's proposed law to ban "fake news and disinformation" emphasized "that a legal process of this kind by the government can set a precedent that represents a risk to freedom of expression, given the possibility of being weaponized for judicial harassment against critics and opponents."

Even if you are lucky to have found the most trustworthy and benevolent leaders in history, ones who are somehow capable of decreeing truth without erring and who use such laws only in the most noble ways – something the Brazilian left believes of Lula and his government – at some point other leaders will be elected and they, too, will have such powers. 

When assessing whether one should support a proposed law, the key question is not whether one is comfortable with it in the hands of leaders one likes and trusts, but whether one is comfortable with such powers in the hands of different leaders.

community logo
Join the Glenn Greenwald Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
81
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Watch Tonight's Monologue

Due to a connection issue, our stream was cut short tonight.
You can find the entire episode below.

We apologize for this technical difficulty - thank you so much for your continued support.

00:43:24
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted
WEEKLY WEIGH-IN: Another Week Another News Cycle

What’s happening in politics that you want to talk about? Are there any burning topics you think Glenn needs to cover? Any thoughts you’d like to share?

This post will be pinned to our profile for the remainder of this week, so comment below anytime with your questions, insights, future topic ideas/guest recommendations, etc. Let’s get a conversation going!

Glenn will respond to a few comments here—and may even address some on our next supporters-only After Show.

Thank you so much for your continued support through another week of SYSTEM UPDATE with Glenn Greenwald!

🏆Dog-of-the-Week:

Dog-of-the-Week goes to… Zeus! Our adorable puppy friend has returned (and grown)! Also happy to see him is Zuma as they share some brotherly love while Glenn gets to some aftershow questions.

WE WANT TO KNOW: Best EP of March?

During March, SYSTEM UPDATE aired some important episodes, covering Israel-Gaza and its famine/humanitarian issues, SCOTUS decisions, Ukraine, media corruption, and much more!

But we want to hear from you all: What was your favorite episode of March? Any thoughts on what we should cover in April?

Comment below! 👇

post photo preview
Fallout From Terrorist Attack on Moscow

On Friday, March 22 at the Moscow Concert Hall, one of the deadliest attacks on Russia in decades took place: several gunmen killed 137 and wounded more than 100 people.

U.S. officials claim the group is ISIS-K, while Russia suspects it was Western-backed Ukrainians.

What are your thoughts?

post photo preview
post photo preview
Lee Fang Exposes 60 Minutes’ Disinfo “Expert” as Partisan Hack. PLUS: The Atlantic Targets Pro-Palestine Stanford Students with Nepo Baby Theo Baker
Video Transcript

Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder
 

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


Good evening. It's Wednesday, March 27. 

Tonight: There is a group of people in the United States who have become convinced that they are qualified to decree what is true and what is false—not in any one particular area of expertise that they have spent a lot of years studying, say, cardiology or archeology or physics, but they believe they are somehow competent to identify truth and falsity in general. And more than just being somehow qualified to identity truth and falsity in general, they believe they are entitled to have their judgments be binding on others, that if they pronounce something to be false or inaccurate, then it should no longer be permitted to be expressed or to be heard.

Such people now call themselves "disinformation experts." This is a completely fraudulent credential. It was invented out of whole cloth following the dual 2016 disasters of Brexit in the UK and Trump's victory over Hillary in the U.S. Seemingly out of nowhere, overnight, there descended upon the United States this creepy new group of self-anointed experts who proclaimed to the world that they were able to identify falsity and deceit where nobody else could. As a result of this unique insight they insist that they and they alone possess, they have demanded the power to dictate the limits of our political debate, and have purported to impose on the largest tech companies in the West the obligation to enforce their pronouncements. 

It should be—and would be—very easy to scoff at such people and dismiss them the way one laughs at people who materialize and proclaim themselves the Messiah and demand that everyone obey and follow them. Yet these people are often financed by the most powerful and politically interventionist billionaires in the West. The country's largest media outlets routinely treat them as the prophets they claim to be. Often, they’re backed by the U.S. intelligence agencies and increasingly, in the West, the force of law is being wielded to bestow upon their judgments an unquestioning shield of truth. 

Over the weekend, the television program “60 Minutes” featured a woman named Kate Starbird, and she was presented as one of our nation's most important and prestigious disinformation experts. “60 Minutes” found it quite scandalous – as did Starbird herself – that X and other platforms have failed in many instances to remove political speech that Starbird believes is false and should be removed. This “60 Minutes” segment really shines a light on how these people think. And since Starbird herself has worked with some of the most menacing state and private-sector institutions attempting to police our political discourse, understanding her is vital to understanding the institutional weapons being unleashed to control political speech online.

One of the journalists who has done the best work on all of this is the independent reporter, Lee Fang. He was not only one of the lead journalists working on the Twitter Files that exposed many of these institutional relationships but has reported specifically on Starbird and the organizations that employ her. He'll join us to talk about what makes her and all of this—this whole system—so truly threatening to our core freedoms. 

Then: the term tattletale journalism is a phrase I first used back in 2021 to describe a new and deeply rooted mentality that now dominates much of corporate journalism. Rather than focus journalistic resources on investigating and exposing institutions of authority and individuals that wield actual power—which is always my understanding of what journalism was supposed to be— instead, the nation's largest media corporations often focus on targeting private citizens who have little to no power, and then drag them into the public light for shaming and even reputational destruction, all as punishment for their having, in the eyes of these media figures, bad political opinions. 

Last night, The Atlantic, which is a magazine owned and funded by one of the richest people on the planet, Steve Jobs’s widow, Laurene Powell Jobs used its vast resources not to target the CIA or Wall Street or the Pentagon, but instead, 22-year-old college students at Stanford who have made what the magazine considers to be intemperate remarks about Israel and their war in Gaza. The editor-in-chief of The Atlantic is Jeffrey Goldberg, who used to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces, IDF, as a prison guard overseeing prisons that held Palestinian prisoners. For this article, he commissioned the 19-year-old son of Peter Baker, who is the New York Times Washington bureau chief, as well as Susan Glasser, the long-time writer at Politico and The New Yorker, where she befriended Goldberg, who then hired her college son to write this article attempting to destroy the reputation of several students at Stanford for the crime of criticism of Israel. 

In so many ways, this article reveals the rot at the heart of American corporate journalism and so, with great reluctance, we will wade into it for that reason. 

For now. Welcome to a new episode of System Updates, starting right now. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Assange Wins Very Partial Victory in UK Court, w/ Stella Assange. New Film Shows Mass Israeli Extremism, w/ Journalist Jeremy Loffredo
Video Transcript

Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder
 

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


Good evening. It's Tuesday, March 26. 

Tonight, the latest in the ongoing effort of the U.S. government—now in its fifth full year—to extradite Julian Assange from the high-security British prison where he's being held to the United States to stand trial on espionage charges. 

Earlier today, the British High Court issued a ruling that is actually a partial victory for Assange, his first in the British judiciary since 2021. The High Court, which was the last court possible to hear his appeal, overturned the U.S. government's victory in the lower court. That court had rejected all of Assange’s arguments for resisting extradition to the United States and accepted all of the government's arguments for why Assange should be extradited immediately. But the court today accepted three of Assange's objections for why extradition might be illegal under both British law and various human rights conventions to which the United Kingdom is bound. 

The ruling tonight does not mean that the U.S. is barred from extraditing Assange, nor, unfortunately, does it mean that the charges will be dropped or that Assange will be released from prison. Instead, the court simply identified several problems with the American extradition request that, perhaps, according to the court and even plausibly according to the court, make it illegal to accept under British and European law, and it gave the United States government until April 16 to try to resolve these problems through all sorts of legal maneuvers. 

It is very possible that the Justice Department will be able to resolve all these problems through a combination of promises and other assurances, though it's not actually entirely clear that they will be able to. Meanwhile, reports of negotiations between the U.S. government, on the one hand, and Assange's lawyers on the other continue to circulate. According to these reports, it would call for Assange to plead guilty to a misdemeanor count in exchange for his release from prison, which would get him out of prison, but might actually set a bad precedent and would prevent his exoneration. We will review today's ruling and all of its implications, and we'll also speak with Julian Assange’s wife, the human rights lawyer Stella Assange. We actually sat down with her just a few minutes ago, shortly before the show began, about her reaction to today's ruling, how Julian himself is doing in his fifth year in prison, what his reaction was to the ruling and what this ruling means for their family and all of us.

Then: that Gaza is now on the brink of mass famine, with many Palestinian children and adults already dying of hunger, the worst way a human being can die beyond dispute, is well documented by multiple aid organizations. What Israel supporters in the West attempt to dispute is not that there's a famine, but that the reason for the famine is that Israel is blocking food and water from entering that territory, exactly what Israel's defense minister at the start of the war vowed that Israel would do, namely blockade Gaza and prevent food and water from entering. 

Jeremy Alfredo is an independent journalist who went to the West Bank and met with and then traveled to the Gaza border with numerous Israeli activists and settlers in the West Bank. He interviewed them about why it is that they have spent weeks organizing physical blockades of trucks bringing food and water into Gaza. 

Here in the West, we constantly hear that Palestinians are full of hatred and violence toward Israelis and that they are taught to think this way from birth, that they're indoctrinated with an ideology of violence and hatred. And yet, if one looks at the Israeli government, it is very clear that this same mentality dominates many of their policies. And we will hear directly from Alfredo and hear directly from the Israelis, with whom he spent a great deal of time. And they will explain in their own words why they are trying hard to cause mass famine and mass starvation, not just for Hamas, but for all Gazans. 

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
A Trifecta of Media Corruption: Ronna McDaniel/NBC, Kara Swisher/Big Tech, & Andrew Huberman/New York Mag
Video Transcript

Watch the full episode here: 

placeholder
 

Podcast: Apple - Spotify 

Rumble App: Apple - Google


Good evening. It's Monday, March 25. 

Tonight: there's quite an uproar taking place at both NBC News and MSNBC. Apparently, they are convinced that they are some sort of real news network and, as a result, many of their on-screen personalities are expressing serious rage in offense over the hiring by NBC of former Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, who is better known as the niece of Mitt Romney. According to these giants of journalism people such as Chuck Todd and Joe Scarborough, the mere presence of someone on their airwaves who was even linked to Donald Trump, who happens to be the person leading all polls to be elected as president of the United States in 2024, would sully this network's reputation for objective and high-minded news. Worse, they say, it would infuriate their liberal viewers who are very unaccustomed to hearing any dissent from the Democratic Party and would feel deeply uncomfortable if they were exposed to any views that made them feel like they weren't being agreed with. 

This is the same august news outlet that is the one that currently employs former Bush-Cheney spokeswoman Nicolle Wallace, former CIA Director John Brennan, Joy Reid— Reid – who has a 7 pm show every night on MSNBC, even though got caught fabricating an elaborate lie about a time-traveling hacker who authored the bigoted blog posts under her name – and as many former agents and operatives of the U.S. Security State as one might found at a Proud Boy rally or a civil war somewhere. 

This reaction to hiring a quite banal RNC chair, somebody who actually is so kind of conventional that she's hated by the MAGA world, reveals a great deal about how employees of the largest media outlets see their actual function. For that reason, we think it's worth taking a look at. 

Then: Ben Carter Swisher has become a very wealthy woman, posturing as the mean and no-nonsense watchdog over Silicon Valley. She has a new book, topping the New York Times bestseller list that purports to expose the secret abuses and corruption of the leaders of this tech culture. And yet, at the very same time that she brands herself as the scores of Silicon Valley powerbrokers, the leading cheerleaders for Kara Swisher generally, and for her new book, in particular, are and always have been the very leaders of the industry she claims to subject to such harsh and unrelenting and critical journalistic scrutiny. If you're a journalist who purports to adversarially report on a leading power center, whether it be Silicon Valley, the military-industrial complex, Congress, or Wall Street, and the leading power brokers of those sectors love and support and praise and help market you, that is a very good sign that what you're doing is subservient propaganda that advances their interests, not independent journalism that undermines it. That is certainly the case for Kara Swisher, who provides a very vivid window into the role that celebrity journalists like her play as they are promoted by the very people they claim to expose. 

And then, finally, the neuroscientist Andrew Huberman has become a major force in independent media, someone who has managed to find a very large and devoted audience without relying on large media corporations at all. He has a podcast that is listened to by millions of people and an audience that he built by himself over time. There is nothing—and I mean nothing—that corporate media hates more than that. Somebody who succeeds without having to rely on their rotted structure. And so this week, they set out to destroy him, as they do to everyone who finds success without relying on their corporate structure. As one of the countless failing liberal digital outlets, New York Magazine has a cover story this week with his face on it that purports to expose dirty and shameful secrets about Huberman's dating life. Yet having read it, there is not a single fact that was even worth reporting or that was even of journalistic value, let alone that one's brings shame or disrepute to him. So often these people demand that the public cry and express sympathy as their journalistic industry dies around them, and they are laid off by the dozens. And yet so often they engage in behavior that makes their failures so well deserved, and feelings of sympathy as we watch them lose their jobs almost impossible as their industry deservedly sinks, and they drown along with it. 

For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right now.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals