This editorial is brought to you by Kyle S. Reyes, the National Spokesman for Law Enforcement Today. If you want to join us in the fight, visit www.backuparrived.com.
We wanted to bring you an update about the tech censorship that Law Enforcement Today has been facing. And it’s a sad day when you’re debating whether or not you should publish an article… because you are worried that the tech giants will put you out of business for doing it.
Last week, Law Enforcement Today announced that we were endorsing Donald J. Trump for President of the United States. We’ve never endorsed a candidate before – but as far as we’re concerned, there’s no choice. America is sitting on a powder keg as the left releases inmates, protects criminals and is doing everything in their power to destroy law and order.
Just days later, we were hit with a ban on Twitter. Why? Your guess is as good as ours.
On Tuesday morning, Law Enforcement Today’s Twitter account was magically reactivated. No explanation for why it had been shut down. No apology. Simply… back. But only after you, our loyal followers, shared the article about the ban thousands of times.
LinkedIn, however, has made it very clear – the founder of Law Enforcement Today and I are deplatformed for life, effectively shutting down the entire media company on the social media giant.
Listen, we knew there’d be fallout for taking a stance. Because let’s be honest – the “loving and tolerant” left believes in free speech, as long as you’re saying what they want you to say.
Moments after President Trump shared our article, we were inundated with hate messages.
To be clear, we’re not talking about people who disagreed with us. We’re talking about people who called for the torture and death of people who work for us – most of whom are active or retired police officers and their families.
Loving and tolerant.
The ban on Twitter came shortly after we shared an article about liberal college professors attacking Vice President Pence after the debates.
That’s right – less than a month before the election, one of the three social media giants has shut down our voice.
Loving and tolerant.
If you think they’re the only ones, they’re not. Law Enforcement Today – like at least one other major police-owned news outlet – has been massively throttled on Facebook in the weeks leading up to the election. No explanation. No violations. Simply highly targeted censorship.
Same thing goes for our Instagram page (note: FB owns IG).
No responses from the company. No explanation.
Loving and tolerant.
Let’s not forget LinkedIn. That’s the social media giant that many people don’t realize is about as biased as they come. Just a few months before the election, LinkedIn made the arbitrary decision to permanently deplatform myself and Captain Robert Greenberg, our founder.
Here are the details on that, in case you missed it, as written by Pat Droney, a retired police chief:
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.
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!