UNITED STATES- On Thursday, May 6th, Law Enforcement Today (LET), the largest police-owned media outlet in the United States, shared an article of its first-hand experience with yet again being censored by big tech companies.
TikTok recently shut down two videos that LET posted on their newly created TikTok account, which gained nearly 80,000 followers within its first three weeks of being on the social media platform.
The videos were shut down due to LET allegedly violating the big tech company’s “hateful behavior” and “violent and graphic content” community guidelines. It should be noted that after reviewing said guidelines, LET’s videos did not violate neither of them. LET Unity - It's being called the "Netflix" of the Emergency Responder and Veteran Community
Shortly after the article about the videos being removed without any explanation from TikTok, both videos were magically restored by the big tech company.
Then, LET posted another video, a mashup of law enforcement and first responders delivering a message to every American (we also shared the video on our Facebook page and have included it below).
Within one hour of posting the video, LET’s TikTok account was permanently banned from the social media platform. Without any type of explanation from the big tech company, LET’s account simply got a notification that said:
“Your account was permanently banned. If you believe this was a mistake, you can submit an appeal.”
“Accounts that consistently violate community guidelines will be banned from TikTok. If your account has been banned, you will receive a banner notification when you next open the app, informing you of this account change.”
The guidelines added:
“If you believe your account was banned by mistake, let us know by submitting an appeal. To submit an appeal, open the notification, tape ‘appeal,’ follow the instructions provided.”
In the video posted by LET that appears to have caused TikTok to ban the account permanently, for in their terms, “consistently violating community guidelines,” is a message of hope from various law enforcement officials and first responders assuring Americans that they will continually be there to serve and protect, regardless of the crisis at hand.
Here is what the officers and first responders had to say:
“These are challenging and unpredictable times, we stand with you, always ready. I know we’re going through some very turbulent times right now as a country. Things may seem scary during these times, but remember America is strong and we’ll come through this every stronger.”
“There is no better time to come together as a country and stand united as Americans to help each other through this health epidemic. I ask that you come together, that you help one another in times of need. Today, let’s focus on being intentional, on our physical and mental wellbeing. Let’s stand strong together.”
“For all of you out there driving trucks, stocking shelves in grocery stores, or working in the hospital, we want you to know that no matter where you are in America, you’re making us proud today. And the people who are just being good citizens and good neighbors, taking care of one another, taking care of themselves.”
“Find things to do, whether it be working out, be active. I would encourage all Americans to be patient and calm as we navigate this crisis and when it’s all over we will be proud to say we defeated this evil virus.”
“But, the one thing that won’t change, is we will always be there for you when you need us. We the first responder community, support you and stand by you through this difficult time. First responders across the country are out there to protect you, to protect your families because we truly care.”
“You gotta have our backs, we’ll have your backs, and we gotta all stick together and we’ll get through this. We will continue to perform our duties to protect you and our families. No matter how you feel right now, just always know you’re never forgotten. You’re never alone.”
“As a country, as a society, we will persevere. I want to thank you all for your support of law enforcement. To all our first responders who put their lives on the line each and every day, thank you for the continued support of law enforcement officers all across this nation.”
“Thank you to all first responders out there working day in and day out during all of this craziness. I just want to say God bless each and every one us working in these weird times we’re at now.”
“We need to keep ourselves healthy, watch our sixes, and God bless the USA. We are the thin blue line and we walk that line for our family and for yours. And remember, no matter the crisis, no matter the events that unfold, law enforcement officers stand ready to protect and serve.”
“And we’re going to be stronger in the future and that sun, it’ll be back tomorrow. Just remember that hope is also contagious, so keep spreading that around the best we can. We are all in this together. Let’s keep up the good fight.”
“God bless America. Everybody be safe. Stay safe and stay healthy America. Don’t worry, we’re all here for you. Keep up the great work. We have your back. Stay hopeful. Stay healthy. Stay strong.”
“We love you. God bless. Thank you guys. Love you guys. Thank you. Stay safe. Stay healthy. Stay strong. From our family to yours. If you need us, we’re here.”
Why TikTok would ban such a powerful, hopeful, and helpful message from law enforcement and first responders to their loved ones and their communities shows the big tech company is targeting those who back and support the individuals who protect and serve.
TikTok’s media team has not responded to emailed inquiries about the shutdown.
It’s not our first time that Big Tech has permanently shut us down…
LinkedIn permanently bans both Law Enforcement Today founder and National Spokesman – wait till you see the reason
The following editorial is written by a retired Chief of Police and current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights under the United States Constitution contains what the Founding Fathers believed to be the most important rights we, as American citizens, enjoy.
The first of those rights is the right to peaceably assemble, the right to worship in whatever means we choose without government intervention, and finally the right to say whatever we want, also known as freedom of speech.
That last part…freedom of speech…is likely the most important right we as Americans enjoy. That right, however, does not apply any longer, at least in the world of social media.
And Law Enforcement Today is learning first hand exactly what that means.
We understand that the Constitution, along with its 27 Amendments, is designed to outline restrictions we as citizens have on the government, before any of our internet legal scholars take us to task for being ignorant. We are well aware of what the Constitution was designed for.
Law Enforcement Today is the largest police-owned media company dedicated to law enforcement and those issues which impact the over 800,000 police officers across the country.
As such, we report on stories in the areas of law enforcement, public policy and politics because in one way or the other, these issues all impact the law enforcement community.
So what has that gotten us? Our founder, Robert Greenberg, a respected active law enforcement officer, and Kyle Reyes, our highly-regarded national spokesman, have both been permanently banned from LinkedIn, a platform on which they were both premium members.
In addition, we have previously seen our content throttled, or restricted if you will, on both Facebook and Twitter.
Why? Because our content skews conservative.
Let’s take the case of Robert Greenberg. On August 24, 2020, Robert received communication from LinkedIn, advising him that his account had been “restricted due to a violation of LinkedIn’s User Agreement,” and then referred to the specific content in question which had apparently been deemed false by the 20-something year old liberal “fact-checkers” at LinkedIn.
And understand this…at least Facebook gives the “appearance” of using a third-party to “fact-check” their content.
At LinkedIn, it’s merely, “If we think it’s fake, it’s fake,” with absolutely no basis for determining that.
So, let’s go through the content that was flagged as false:
- January 15, 2020: “Police say Reeaz Khan, who is in the country illegally, raped and murdered a 92-year-old woman as she was walking home. He was arrested in November on assault and weapons charges. He was released thanks to New York City’s sanctuary policies.”
Full disclosure—I wrote that piece. And every ounce of information in that article was sourced, with information including a press release from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, in which they clearly and specifically said that Khan was arrested on November 27, 2019 for multiple charges.
To quote the release:
“On that same date, ERO [Enforcement and Removal Operations] deportation officers lodged a detainer with the NYPD. The detainer was not honored, and Khan was released following arraignment.”
The release also said:
“It is made clear that New York City’s stance against honoring detainers is dangerously flawed. It was a deadly choice to release a man on an active ICE detainer back onto the streets after his firs arrest included assault and weapons charges, and he now faces new charges, including murder,” said Thomas R. Decker, field office director for ERO New York.
Ok LinkedIn, what’s “false or fake” about that? If you say nothing, that would be correct.
Another one, also widely reported:
- August 4, 2020: “Unsanctioned “murals” reading “Black Lives Matter” and “Defund the Police” are ok, but the pro-life message apparently wasn’t. Even though it was in chalk. So they’re suing.”
Once again, this incident was widely reported and our staff writer cited a Fox News report, including an interview of the people arrested from Tucker Carlson Tonight.
While in the particular case of Washington, DC the BLM mural was sanctioned, the writer made the point that in many places, such messages are not sanctioned.
In fact, during the interview, Carlson made the point that:
“The city appears to be covered in political graffiti, racial slurs, obscenities, spray paint—indelible—on our public buildings. This was chalk, something that was colored dust. Am I missing something?”
So here we have again another instance where our founder was accused of false or misleading post which was widely circulated in mainstream sources.
- August 7, 2020: “President Trump: The Political Crime of the Century is unfolding. Obama/Biden illegally spied on the Trump campaign, both before and after the election. Treason!”
The above of course refers to a tweet sent by President Trump after it was revealed by Sally Yates, former deputy attorney general under Obama that Biden had been in the Oval Office in January, 2017 when they were discussing former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
President Trump’s tweet shared revelations by Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University Law School, in which he said that Sally Yates had testified she would not sign off on the surveillance of Carter Page if she knew then what she knows now, and that Rod Rosenstein had said the same thing.
This of course all goes back to revelations that Flynn was basically framed in order to get to President Trump and undermine his presidency.
So riddle me this, LinkedIn? How is a tweet from the President of the United States when he expresses his opinion deemed to be false or fake? It was the president’s opinion that it was the “crime of the century” and that his campaign had been spied on by the Obama/Biden administration.
- August 13, 2020: “Everything is on the line…Biden running mate Kamala Harris at one time said she would confiscate guns through executive order.”
Once again, this is an article I authored. There is absolutely nothing false or misleading about this statement. There was a meme going around which suggested that Harris would send police to people’s doors to confiscate guns. That was NOT included in our reporting.
We cited a CNN town hall in Manchester, New Hampshire in which Harris clearly said:
“If they fail to do it then I will take executive action.”
Once again, LinkedIn had zero basis for deeming this false or misleading.
Robert of course appealed his initial restriction to LinkedIn. Some no doubt soy milk-swilling millennial named Wyatt, who works as a “LinkedIn Member Safety and Recovery Consultant” responded to him and said that the appeal was denied and they were maintaining their original decision.
When asked to clarify, “Wyatt” advised Robert that the account was “restricted permanently.”
Now, let’s take a look at our National Spokesman, Kyle Reyes.
Over the past year or so, Reyes has had personal restrictions placed on his account, the most recent which led to him being permanently banned from the platform.
Reyes noted that according to their publicist, LinkedIn advises people when they are going to place restrictions on accounts and let you know what you allegedly did wrong. That has not been done. Reyes said he only noticed when he logged on that his account had been restricted.
Reyes noted that for every story that is posted on LinkedIn, the exact same story is simultaneously posted on three separate pages through Hootsuite. The articles were posted on Reyes’ page, Robert Greenberg’s page and the Law Enforcement Today page. Articles are also posted on Twitter and Facebook.
Reyes noted that we started getting “throttled” (in other words, our articles’ reach was restricted). For example, an article that was sent out from the New York City Police Department about death threats being levied against officers reached almost nobody as did another article.
In essence, Law Enforcement Today, Reyes and Greenberg were all being “shadow banned.”
Reyes messaged LinkedIn asking for an explanation of why the articles were throttled after receiving an email from LinkedIn that they had in fact done exactly that. Once Reyes sent the message, they removed the throttling.
Reyes said that under the Communications Decency Act of 1996, protection is granted to third parties such as LinkedIn, Facebook, etc., under section 230, which means that such platforms are not “publishers” and therefore granted immunity from lawsuits since they don’t “control” the content from authors.
Reyes contends, and I agree, that by manipulating access to the post, they ceased acting outside the scope of merely a platform (prioritizing, extent of reach) and even acknowledged in writing they had done it, that removed their so-called third-party status and they therefore became publishers.
Did the content violate their standards of service? Nope. They claimed that the “content was not relevant to their audience.” Had it violated their terms of service; they could have removed it. However, that was not the case.
That’s called a breach of contract by LinkedIn, folks.
It is interesting that as a spokesman for Law Enforcement Today, which represents over 800,000 police officers nationwide, LinkedIn felt that Reyes’ report of a threat AGAINST police officers was not “relevant” to their audience, which consists of a large number of police officers and retired police officers.
Yet another cased cited by LinkedIn involved an article about a truck driver who was robbed, leading to one of the armed robbers getting run over by the truck and killed. LinkedIn claimed the article was “graphic and obscene,” therefore violating their community standards.
LinkedIn’s standards say they ban content “if it INTENDS to shock.” (emphasis added). The intent wasn’t to shock, but rather to inform, to raise awareness about the dangers to drivers, in particular truck drivers. “Intent” is a subjective word.
Such content was widely distributed and widely available on mainstream media outlets, as well as internet platforms such as YouTube.
It is unknown if Reyes (and likely Greenberg) were the only ones restricted or if all LinkedIn members who posted the story likewise restricted.
LinkedIn even went so far as to provide a list of past articles posted by Reyes they claimed were fake news. In other words, they admitted that they had in essence been targeting him and actively looked for a reason to shut him down. As mentioned above, the articles they referred to were all cited with legitimate media sources and many were widely reported.
Other articles flagged by LinkedIn under the guise of “intent to shock” and “graphic and obscene” were articles involving a business owner who was stoned trying to protect his store during the riots, and an article about a man who kidnapped a woman and left her for dead, then tried to kill two police officers.
Once again, LinkedIn claimed this to be a violation of their policy and “intended to shock.”
One key point that LinkedIn is ignoring is who the audience of Law Enforcement Today is.
As stated, our content is designed for police officers, retired police officers, people who work in the criminal justice system, military both active and retired, law enforcement supporters and those who are interested in law enforcement and crime.
People who follow Kyle, Robert, and Law Enforcement Today should expect that their content will be largely reflective of law enforcement, which sadly includes crime. We also talk about politics because that is something, as we have seen over the past 3-1/2 months that greatly affects crime and law enforcement.
The fact of the matter is people decide to follow Law Enforcement Today. They are clearly able to scroll on by if they do not want to hear about criminal justice. The content of our page is deemed relevant by whomever chooses to follow us…or Kyle, or Robert.
Let me make this clear. We are not afraid to report the truth. Our writers take great pains, as do our editors to ensure that the content we post is sourced. Content that contains opinions is correctly tagged as just that…an editorial.
While researching for this article, I came across numerous posts on LinkedIn whereby the poster cited the Atlantic article (I won’t do it justice by even linking to it) which suggested President Trump had made disparaging remarks against World War I veterans, an article which cited “unnamed sources.”
Yet, those posts still appear on LinkedIn and apparently those who posted clearly false information (the Atlantic article has been widely debunked by numerous people who were actually present) are still on the platform.
So, our national spokesman and our founder have both been removed from LinkedIn. We can only assume that the next shoes to drop will come from Twitter and Facebook. Why? Because we are unabashedly pro-America, pro-law enforcement, pro-Bill of Rights and pro-military, and pro-God and country.
Clearly if we were pro-Marxist revolutionaries, LinkedIn and other social media companies would not have an issue with us.
The bottom line is we post stuff that makes people (liberals) feel uncomfortable. Just as they go after Fox News, OANN, The Blaze, and other right-leaning outlets, so too do they go after Law Enforcement Today.
Someone complained and LinkedIn, like the little doggy in the back window with the nodding head, and without actually engaging in any real “fact-checking” either deletes the post, or in this case, deletes those who post the message. It’s sickening actually.
This is what is here, and one can only imagine that things have the potential of getting much, much worse. Whenever a country stifles debate and discussion, freedom is the next thing to go out the window.
Time was you could disagree in this country and not risk your life in doing so. That time appears to be coming to an end and faster than any of us realized it would.
TikTok permanently bans Law Enforcement Today from its platform
No comments:
Post a Comment