Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

International

Trump White House will ignore reporter emails that include ‘preferred pronouns’ in signature

Published

2 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily  Mangiaracina

“Any reporter who chooses to put their preferred pronouns in their bio clearly does not care about biological reality or truth and therefore cannot be trusted to write an honest story”

The White House will ignore all emails from reporters which include preferred gender pronouns in their email signatures according to Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

“Any reporter who chooses to put their preferred pronouns in their bio clearly does not care about biological reality or truth and therefore cannot be trusted to write an honest story,” Leavitt wrote in response to a request for comment from the New York Times.

The practice of citing one’s preferred gender pronouns, which is increasingly prevalent among leftists, stems from gender ideology, the idea that people have a “gender identity” that is distinct from their sex. Thus, for example, women who identify as males may include the gender pronouns “he/him” in their email signature or other identifiers.

Leavitt had previously stated to a NYT reporter who inquired about the potential closure of a climate research observatory, “As a matter of policy, we do not respond to reporters with pronouns in their bios.”

The New York Times reported that Katie Miller, senior advisor for the Department Of Government Efficiency (DOGE), had weeks prior declined another question from a Times reporter, for the same reason.

“As a matter of policy, I don’t respond to people who use pronouns in their signatures as it shows they ignore scientific realities and therefore ignore facts,” Miller said in an email. In a separate message, she noted, “This applies to all reporters who have pronouns in their signature.”

Censorship Industrial Complex

US Under Secretary of State Slams UK and EU Over Online Speech Regulation, Announces Release of Files on Past Censorship Efforts

Published on

logo

By

Sarah Rogers’ comments draw a new line in the sand between America’s First Amendment and Europe’s tightening grip on online speech.

Speaking during an appearance on The Liz Truss Show, Rogers said Washington intends to respond to the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom after it sought to bring the website 4chan under its jurisdiction.
She said the situation “forced” the US to defend its constitutional protections, warning that “when British regulators decree that British law applies to American speech on American sites on American soil with no connection to Britain,” the matter can no longer be ignored.
Rogers called it “a perverse blessing” that the dispute is forcing a renewed transatlantic conversation about free expression, observing that “Britain and America did develop the free speech tradition together.”
Rogers announced that the State Department will soon publish a collection of previously unreleased internal emails and documents describing earlier US government involvement in social media moderation efforts.
The release is part of what she termed a “truth and reconciliation initiative” that will include material linked to the now-defunct Global Engagement Center, which she said had coordinated with outside organizations to identify content for takedown.
That operation was “immediately dismantled” after she assumed her current post.
She argued that foreign governments have moved from cooperation to coercion in their dealings with US companies. “Europe and the UK and other governments abroad are…trying to nullify the American First Amendment by enforcing against American companies and American speakers and American soil,” Rogers said, referring to the EU’s fine against X and Ofcom’s recent enforcement campaigns.
On domestic policy, she criticized the UK’s Online Safety Act, saying that it is being sold as child protection legislation but in practice functions as a speech control measure.
“These statutes are just censoring adult political speech is not the best way to protect kids and it’s probably the worst way,” she said.
Rogers noted that under such laws, even parliamentary remarks about criminal networks could be censored if regulators deem them harmful.
Turning to Ofcom’s ongoing 4chan case, Rogers said its legal position effectively claims authority over purely American websites.
She offered a hypothetical: “I could go set up a website in my garage…about American political controversies…and Ofcom’s legal position nonetheless is that if I run afoul of British content laws, then I have to pay money for the British government.”
Rogers said she expects the US government to issue a response soon.
Throughout the interview, Rogers framed the current wave of global online regulation as an effort to suppress what she called “chaotic speech” that emerges with every major communications shift.
“People panic and they want to shove that innovation back in the bottle,” she said, warning that such attempts have “never worked.”
Her remarks mark one of the strongest rebukes yet from a senior American official toward the growing European model of compelled content moderation.
Rogers suggested that this model not only undermines open debate but also sets a precedent for governments worldwide to police political speech beyond their borders.
Continue Reading

Business

Largest fraud in US history? Independent Journalist visits numerous daycare centres with no children, revealing massive scam

Published on

A young journalist has uncovered perhaps the largest fraud scheme in US history. 

He certainly isn’t a polished reporter with many years of experience, but 23 year old independent journalist Nick Shirley seems to be getting the job done. Shirley has released an incredible video which appears to outline fraud after fraud after fraud in what appears to be a massive taxpayer funded scheme involving up to $9 Billion Dollars.

In one day of traveling around Minneapolis-St. Paul, Shirley appears to uncover over $100 million in fraudulent operations.

Continue Reading

Trending

X