Driver Accused of Killing 7 Bikers in New Hampshire was Immigrant with Record Who Should Have Been Deported

New Hampshire: Volodoymyr Zhukovskyy, 23, a migrant from Ukraine, was driving a pickup truck that collided last week with a group of motorcyclists from the Jarheads Motorcycle Club, killing seven people and injuring three others. He was arrested, but should have been deported due to his long criminal record that includes two prior DUI arrests and another for possession of a crack pipe. He also pleaded guilty to two drug charges in January 2017 for possession of cocaine and heroin, but just paid a fine.

On Friday, June 21st 2019 Jarheads MC was riding to a charity event
at the local American Legion in Gorham, New Hampshire Post #82. The
group was hit by a truck driver, Seven members were killed and three

** A GoFundMe page was setup for the victims and their families.

Volodoymyr Zhukovskyy, 23, of West Springfield, Massachusetts, returned to New Hampshire this week where he faces negligent homicide charges.

Zhukovskyy was driving a pickup truck
that collided Friday night with a group of motorcyclists, killing seven
people and injuring three others. He was arrested in Massachusetts on

Zhukovskyy, an immigrant from Ukraine, has a long criminal record and should have been deported.

Read full article here…

Journalist Andy Ngo Attacked at Portland Rally by Antifa. His Lawyer Says He Was Later Admitted to Hospital for a ‘Brain Bleed’

Portland, Oregon: Andy Ngo, a journalist who covers Antifa activity, was attacked at rally on Saturday by masked Antifa members. Portland police claimed that some of the milkshakes thrown by the antifa activists on Saturday may have contained quick-dry cement. The Antifa mob beat Andy Ngo, who is critical of them, but who posed no physical threat to them and was there to document their activities on a public street. His legal representative, Harmeet Dhillon, reported that Ngo was admitted to the hospital for a ‘brain bleed’. Senator Ted Cruz called on federal law enforcement to investigate and bring legal action against Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, who reportedly called on police officers to stand down on Saturday.

Andy Ngo, a photojournalist and editor at Quillette, landed
in the emergency room after a mob of antifa activists attacked him on
the streets of Portland during a Saturday afternoon demonstration.

assailants wore black clothing and masks, and were engaged in a
counter-protest against several right-wing groups, including the Proud Boys.
Ngo is a well-known chronicler of antifa activity, and has criticized
their illiberal tactics on Fox News. He attended the protest in this
capacity—as a journalist, covering a notable public event.

According to Ngo, his attacker stole his camera equipment. But video footage recorded by another journalist, The Oregonian‘s Jim Ryan, clearly shows an antifa activist punching Ngo in the face. Others throw milkshakes at him.

Read full article here…

Additional sources:

Bono NGO: African Migrants Full of ‘Youthful Energy’ Needed to Replace ‘Senile,’ Aging Europeans

Jamie Drummond, the Executive Director of ONE, Irish singer Bono’s so-called charity, was pushing mass immigration into Europe, especially from Africa, as its population of 1.2 billion people is expected to double by 2050. He claimed in the video that was recorded last year that Europeans needed an influx of migrants “to do stuff” because “we will be senile.” Meanwhile, ONE raises millions of dollars each year, yet spends very little money on the ground for the causes it ostensibly supports.

Africa’s population is soon going to “double” and “whatever the circumstances” will mass migrate to Europe — “and that is a good thing,” according to the executive director of Bono’s “ONE” NGO.

“As Africa’s population doubles, a lot of them, whatever the circumstances, will be coming to Europe, as economic migrants or as refugees, they will be coming, many of them,” ONE co-founder Jamie Drummond told the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade and Defence last year. “And that is a good thing.”

we will be senile,” Drummond said. “We will be senescent
demographically. We’ll need their youthful energy to do stuff. So, that
is just what the economic statistics tell you and the demographic data
demands, you know, demography is destiny.”

He continued: “Europe and Africa are going to have a very close 21st
century. The question is what kind of closeness will it be. And these
kinds of investments through the aid program but also into people’s
minds and ideas about who we are gives less succour to the xenophobes
and populists who will otherwise do very well in the political climate
over the next couple of decades if we don’t get this right, and I think
we should all be quite worried quite frankly if we don’t make these
investments and we don’t also make the investments not just in aid but
in other policies like transparency.”

Read full article here…

Additional source:

Computer Hackers Target Cities with Outdated Infrastructure for Bribe Payments After Shutting Down Systems

Hackers are becoming more sophisticated and are targeting cities with outdated IT infrastructure to hold them ransom for sizable sums. Lake City, a small town in Florida with a population of 12,000 people, paid $462,000 after a ransomware attack crippled its systems, and Riviera Beach, a city of 34,000 near West Palm Beach, authorized a similar $600,000 ransom payment. Attackers are going after both companies and cities by exploiting vulnerabilities via malicious email attachments and demanding payments for decryption keys. In early June, Baltimore rejected a $76,000 ransom, and the damage will instead cost the city about $18 million in IT costs and lost revenue. 

Cyber-criminals have struck for the second week in a row, this time on a small Florida city called Lake City, according to the WSJ.
The city has agreed to pay ransom to the tune of hundreds of thousands
of dollars after a ransomware attack crippled its systems. 

Lake City’s council approved the measure during an emergency meeting
Monday night and will be paying about $462,000 via Bitcoin, by way of
the city’s insurer. This payment follows a similar incident in Riviera
Beach, a city of 34,000 near West Palm Beach, where the city’s council
authorized a similar $600,000 ransom payment.

The event [in Lake City] began June 10 with what the city described
as a “triple threat” malware attack, then escalated with a ransom demand
last week, the city said in a news release. The attack knocked out
email and hindered city services, and people had to temporarily pay
utility bills on terminals at the police station, the city manager said.
The attack included a ransomware variant called Ryuk that is known for
hefty ransom demands.

Emergency services weren’t affected. But Lake City authorities
worried they wouldn’t be able to access encrypted files such as
ordinances, public-record requests and utility information.

These are both signs of how increasingly sophisticated hackers are
targeting cities with outdated IT infrastructure and holding them ransom
for sizeable sums. And suceeding. The Riviera Beach ransom was about 12
times the size of a ransom demand that Atlanta refused to pay last
year. These demands are becoming more common and are growing in size.
The six figure sums averaged only a couple thousand dollars a few years

Ironically, the hacking measures appear to come thanks to a hack of
the NSA’s own weaponized hacking arsenal, which is now being used
against the US.

Larry Ponemon, whose Michigan research company, the Ponemon
Institute, focuses on information security said: “There are a lot of
copycats out there, and they figure they’re going to ride the gravy

Attackers are going after both companies and cities regularly by
exploiting vulnerabilities via malicious email attachments and demanding
payments for decryption keys. 

Read full article here…

Rex Tillerson Airs Concern About Jared Kushner’s Secret Dealings with Foreign Leaders

Rex Tillerson, the former Secretary of State, revealed in recently released testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he was blindsided by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who held discussions with world leaders, influencing foreign policy while excluding the State Department. Tillerson reported that both he and General Mattis were surprised in May 2017 when Kushner and Steve Bannon held a private meeting with the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates who discussed their intention to impose a blockade on Qatar, yet the White House later denied prior knowledge of the closure.

In newly disclosed testimony, former secretary of state Rex Tillerson said President Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, operated independently with powerful leaders around the world without coordination with the State Department, leaving Tillerson out of the loop and in the dark on emerging U.S. policies and simmering geopolitical crises.

In a transcript of his testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Tillerson also described the challenge of briefing a president who does not read briefing papers and often got distracted by peripheral topics, noting he had to keep his message short and focus on a single topic.

“I learned to be much more concise with what I wanted to bring in front of him,” Tillerson told the House panel during a seven-hour session in May.

He stood by his previous characterization that Trump does not dive deep into details and said he learned not to give the president articles or long memos. “That’s just not what he was going to do,” he said.

The Washington Post and other news outlets received an advance copy of the redacted transcript before it was published by the committee Thursday.

On several occasions, Tillerson said he was blindsided by Kushner’s discussions with world leaders.

In one instance, Tillerson said he learned that Kushner was meeting with Mexico’s foreign secretary, Luis Videgaray, because he happened to be in the same Washington restaurant while the two men hashed out a “fairly comprehensive plan of action” that Tillerson didn’t know about.

“The owner of the restaurant . . . came around and said, “Oh, Mr. Secretary, you might be interested to know the foreign secretary of Mexico is seated at a table near the back in case you want to go by and say hello to him,” Tillerson said. “And so I did.”

Tillerson said he saw the “color go out of the face” of the foreign secretary as he walked into the room. “I said: Welcome to Washington. . . . Give me a call next time you’re coming to town.”

In another instance, Tillerson explained in detail being stunned by the 2017 Persian Gulf crisis in which key Arab allies severed ties with Qatar, another key U.S. ally. He said he was in Australia at the time with then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, and both were caught off guard.

“I was surprised,” he said.

He also said he was not aware of meetings that had been occurring between Arab leaders and Kushner, including a private huddle May 20, 2017, between Kushner, Trump’s then-adviser Stephen K. Bannon and the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. During the meeting, Arab leaders discussed their intention to impose a blockade on Qatar, though the White House later denied prior knowledge of the June 5 closure.

“What’s your reaction to a meeting of that sort having taken place without your knowledge?” Tillerson was asked by committee staff.

“It makes me angry,” Tillerson said. “Because I didn’t have a say. The State Department’s views were never expressed.”

White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said that such a gathering to “discuss the blockade never happened, and neither Jared, nor anyone in the White House, was involved in the blockade.”

Read full article here:

Europe Announces New Trade Payment System, Instex, to Work Around Trump’s Sanctions Against Iran

The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT), a European cooperative used for international bank transactions, trades mostly in US dollars, giving America influence over it. SWIFT complied with sanctions against Iran in 2018 after the US threatened sanctions against the organization. Europe announced that Instex, a special trade channel that circumvents SWIFT, is operational and will be used by Europe to buy Iranian goods, and vice-versa, without actual money-transfers between European and Iranian banks. Critics worry that Trump could retaliate with sanctions against European banks.

With the world waiting for the first headlines from the Trump-Xi
meeting, the most important and unexpected news of the day hit moments
ago, when Europe announced that the special trade channel, Instex, that will allow European firms to avoid SWIFT and bypass American sanctions on Iran, is now operational.

Following a meeting between the countries who singed the Iran nuclear
deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),
which was ditched by US, French, British and German officials said the
trade mechanism which was proposed last summer and called Instex, is now

As a reminder, last September, in order to maintain a financial
relationship with Iran that can not be vetoed by the US, Europe unveiled
a “Special Purpose Vehicle” to bypass SWIFT. The mechanism would
facilitate transactions between European and Iranian companies, while
preventing the US from vetoing the transactions and pursuing punitive
measures on those companies and states that defied Trump. The payment
balancing system will allow companies in Europe to buy Iranian goods,
and vice-versa, without actual money-transfers between European and
Iranian banks.

The statement came after the remaining signatures of JCPOA gathered in Vienna for a meeting that Iranian ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi called  “the last chance for the remaining parties…to gather and see how they can meet their commitments towards Iran.”

Until today, Tehran was skeptical about EU’s commitment to the deal
and threatened to exceed the maximum amount of enriched uranium allowed
it by the deal after US had imposed a series of sanctions on the

Meanwhile, opponents of Instex – almost exclusively the US – have
argued that the mechanism is flawed because the Iranian institution
designated to work with Instex, the Special Trade and Finance
Instrument, has shareholders with links to entities already facing
sanctions from the U.S.  

The announcement sent oil sharply lower, with crude futures falling
about $1/bbl in closing minutes before settlement, extending daily loss,
as it means Iran now has a fully functioning pathway to receive payment
for oil it exports to anyone it chooses.

Read full article here…

Every Democrat on Stage at the Second Night of Debates Says Illegal Aliens Should Get Health Insurance. The $32 Trillion Cost for ‘Medicare for All’ Is Wildly Underestimated – Before Adding 11 Million Migrants.

On the second night of the Democrat candidates’ debate, all of the participants raised their hands in agreement illegal immigrants should get taxpayer-funded government health insurance.The ten candidates who support taxpayer-funded healthcare include Michael Bennet, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, John Hickenlooper, Bernie Sanders, Eric Swalwell, Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang. In addition, Cory Booker, Julian Castro, and Elizabeth Warren previously said that they also support covering illegal immigrants.

The cost of government subsidized insurance is estimated at $32 trillion over 10 years – before adding at least 11 million illegal immigrants. Candidate John Delaney pointed out that Bernie Sanders’ ‘Medicare for All’ plan is based on current Medicare rates, and the pay cuts would force hospitals to close, or the estimate will go way up, by perhaps 50 or 100%.

Bernie Sanders is offering a lot of government services, including
“Medicare for all,” which promises to pay for everyone’s healthcare. So
when he becomes president, will he raise taxes on the middle class?
Sanders was offered up this question as a lead-off in the June 27
Democratic presidential debate. He blathered for a full minute without
answering, then he had to be asked a second time before he finally
produced an answer: “Yes, they will pay more in taxes,” he said, “but
less in healthcare.”

OK, maybe. But this answer actually raises far more questions than it answers.

The first and most uncomfortable question was raised moments later in the same debate by Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet. Bernie Sanders’ home state of Vermont, governed entirely by Democrats at the time, killed off its proposal for single-payer healthcare. Democratic Gov. Pete Shumlin signed the bill to implement the program in 2011. He also pulled the plug on the program in 2015 when he found out that it would double his state’s budget. Vermonters would have had to pay an 11.5% payroll tax, plus a 9-point increase in the state income tax.

In Colorado, voters rejected single-payer healthcare for the same reason, with 79% voting against a plan that would have more than doubled
their state budget. And in California, where Democrats have the power
to do just about any crazy thing they like, Democrats killed their own
Healthy California single-payer healthcare plan because it would have tripled their state budget.

Read full article here…

Nancy Pelosi Accepts Senate’s $4.6 Billion Migrant Funding Bill that Contains Many Democrat ‘Wins’

Breitbart reports that the Senate’s bill provides zero spending to curb migration. The bill allocates more than $1 billion for the orderly inflow of many economic migrants into Americans’ workplaces and schools. The Senate bill also assigns more than $3 billion to maintain the pipeline of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) from Central America to their sponsors in the US. In addition, it provides $30 million to the Democrat-affiliated non-profits that help migrants move to their target locations, $10 million for immigration lawyers to help migrants win asylum, and $9 million to help illegal migrants get their “UAC” children delivered faster. It also loads more requirements onto the detention centers, driving up costs and likely providing Democrats with future excuses to denounce the shelters.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has abandoned the House’s migrant crisis
funding bill in favor of the Senate’s less radical version, which
includes some of the Democrats’ many pro-migration priorities.

The concession was made as the House and Senate ran out of debating
time prior to the July 4 recess, amid strong support from Senate
Democrats for the Senate’s migration crisis funding bill.

But the concession is not a permanent defeat for House Democrats, who
will likely include many of their pro-migration, anti-enforcement
priorities in the pending homeland security funding bill.

The Senate migration crisis bill provides more than $1 billion to
preserve the orderly inflow of many economic migrants into Americans’
workplaces and schools, and includes no spending to curb migration.

The Senate also ensures more than $3 billion to maintain the
well-organized pipeline of so-called “Unaccompanied Alien Children” from
Central America to their sponsors in the United States. Most of the
sponsors are the youths’ parents and in-laws, many of whom are living
illegally in the United States.

The Senate bill preserves the UAC pipeline because it includes a
Democratic amendment which bars ICE from deporting the illegal
immigrants who sign up as “sponsors.” In 2018, President Donald Trump’s
enforcement officers began deporting illegals who revealed themselves
while trying to pick up their children at shelters run by the Department
of Health and Human Services.

Pelosi dropped the House’s version of the bill amid opposition from swing district Democrats. According to Politico:

The House had planned to vote Thursday on its amended
version of the border package. But roughly 18 moderates vowed to oppose
the bill on the floor, according to multiple sources familiar with the
whip count.

Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla), a leader of the Blue Dog Coalition,
confirmed that multiple moderates had been planning to buck the party on
a procedural vote on the floor later Thursday.

“We have a significant number,” Murphy said. When asked if it was
enough to tank the bill on the floor, “That is to be determined.”

GOP Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy had slammed
the Democrats’ support for the UAC pipeline, which is jointly run by
the Mexican cartels and U.S. federal agencies. In a floor speech on June
25, he said:

I’m not sure anybody’s read the bill. I’m not sure even
those on the other side know what’s in it. Here’s how it’s worse — [it
says the] Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services
[HHS] cannot share information about the sponsors of [Unaccompanied
Alien] children [UAC].

Think about that for one moment. They’re making sure two departments
cannot share information in their own government. This [sharing] is
necessary to ensure children are not placed with human traffickers or
other predators.

The House version also include stealth rules that would block
President Donald Trump’s border control strategies. These include the
Remain in Mexico program, the metering initiative, and the pending
rewrite of the Flores Settlement agreement, and his use of foreign aid
to pressure more cooperation from Latin American countries. Those
strategies appear to have reduced the catch and release of migrants by
two-thirds in the last three weeks, according to data released by
Breitbart News.

Read full article here…

NY Times Admits It Sends Stories to the US Government for Approval Before Publication

The New York Times has publicly acknowledged that it sends some of its stories to the US government for approval from “national security officials” before publication. Former NY Times reporter, James Risen, said that the publisher regularly collaborates with the government and suppresses news stories, especially after 9/11 when it happened so frequently that he was convinced the Bush administration was invoking national security to quash stories that were embarrassing and raised questions about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. In 1977, Carl Bernstein published an article in the Rolling Stone magazine exposing that more than 400 American journalists in the previous 25 years had “secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency.

The New York Times has publicly acknowledged that it sends some of its stories to the US government for approval from “national security officials” before publication.

This confirms what veteran New York Times correspondents like James Risen have said: The American newspaper of record regularly collaborates with the US government, suppressing reporting that top officials don’t want made public.

On June 15, the Times reported that the US government is escalating its cyber attacks on Russia’s power grid. According to the article, “the Trump administration is using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively,” as part of a larger “digital Cold War between Washington and Moscow.”

In response to the report, Donald Trump attacked the Times on Twitter, calling the article “a virtual act of Treason.”

The New York Times PR office replied to Trump from its official Twitter account, defending the story and noting that it had, in fact, been cleared with the US government before being printed.

“Accusing the press of treason is dangerous,” the Times communications team said. “We described the article to the government before publication.”

“As our story notes, President Trump’s own national security officials said there were no concerns,” the Times added.

Indeed, the Times report on the escalating American cyber attacks
against Russia is attributed to “current and former [US] government
officials.” The scoop in fact came from these apparatchiks, not from a
leak or the dogged investigation of an intrepid reporter.

‘Real’ journalists get approval from ‘national security’ officials

The neoliberal self-declared “Resistance” jumped on Trump’s reckless accusation of treason (the Democratic Coalition, which boasts, “We help run #TheResistance,” responded by calling Trump “Putin’s puppet”). The rest of the corporatemedia went wild.

But what was entirely overlooked was the most revealing thing in the
New York Times’ statement: The newspaper of record was essentially
admitting that it has a symbiotic relationship with the US government.

In fact, some prominent American pundits have gone so far as to insist
that this symbiotic relationship is precisely what makes someone a

In May, neoconservative Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen — a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush — declared that WikiLeaks publisher and political prisoner Julian Assange is “not a journalist”; rather, he is a “spy” who “deserves prison.” (Thiessen also once called Assange “the devil.”)

What was the Post columnist’s rationale for revoking Assange’s journalistic credentials?

Unlike “reputable news organizations, Assange did not give the US
government an opportunity to review the classified information WikiLeaks
was planning to release so they could raise national security
objections,” Thiessen wrote. “So responsible journalists have nothing to

In other words, this former US government speechwriter
turned corporate media pundit insists that collaborating with the
government, and censoring your reporting to protect so-called “national
security,” is definitionally what makes you a journalist.

This is the express ideology of the American commentariat

Read full article here…

Bank of America Cuts Business with Illegal Immigrant Holding Facilities for Illegal Immigrants and Private Prisons

Bank of America announced it will stop lending to migrant detention centers and private prisons to avoid public backlash, following similar moves by JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and the US Bank. Banks are already targets of the presidential candidates and are trying to avoid being the crossfire of these issues that became even more emotional after Democrats took control of the House in 2018 and Maxine Waters became the chair of the Financial Services Committee. Bank of America is trying to avoid criticism after reporting a profit of $28 billion in 2018, according to an analyst.

Bank of America will cease lending to detention centers and private prisons, making it one of the last big Wall Street bankers to cut ties with the industry as corporations wrestle with whether to cash in on President Trump’s immigration policies or create distance amid increasing public backlash.

“The private sector is attempting to respond to public policy and government needs and demands in the absence of long standing and widely recognized reforms needed in criminal justice and immigration policies,” Bank of America said in a statement to The Washington Post. “Lacking further legal and policy clarity, and in recognition of the concerns of our employees and stakeholders in the communities we serve, it is our intention to exit these relationships.”

Dropping private prison companies is a way for banks, already targets of Democratic presidential candidates, to get out of the crossfire on another emotional issue, industry analysts have said. JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo made similar moves earlier this year, and U.S. Bank told The Post in March that it, too, was pulling back.

Banks have been conducting a cost-benefit analysis on whether the relatively small fees drawn from the prison industry are worth the political headache and potential reputational hit, said Ed Mills, a Washington-based policy analyst with Raymond James. The calculus changed after Democrats took control of the House in 2018, elevating Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) to the chair of the powerful Financial Services Committee where progressive lightening rod, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), also serves, he said. No “big bank CEO wants to go in front of Congress and have to explain why their bank is financing something politically controversial,” Mills said. “The banking fee is not worth the risk.”

The moves also come as big banks post record profits and the Trump administration rolls back regulations put in place after the global financial crisis. In 2018, Bank of America reported profit of $28.1 billion — an all-time high and 56 percent higher than the $18 billion recorded the year before. Its chief executive, Brian Moynihan, made $26.5 million last year.

Read full article here…

Psychologist, Dr. Robert Epstein, Says Big Tech Can ‘Shift Upwards of 15 Million Votes with No One Knowing They Have Been Manipulated’

Dr. Epstein, a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, responded to the Project Veritas sting video, which shows Google executive Jen Gennai proclaiming the tech giant she works for is determined to prevent the re-election of Donald Trump, by saying that it confirms that Google could influence votes and is willing to do so. Epstein estimated that Big Tech could sway 15 million votes because Google and Facebook are unregulated at this time.

Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” psychologist
Dr. Robert Epstein explained how a recently released Project Veritas undercover video,
which shows Google executive Jen Gennai proclaiming the tech giant she
works for is determined to prevent the re-election of Donald Trump,
verified what he has concluded from his research.

Epstein, a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for
Behavioral Research and Technology, told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson it
confirmed that Google could influence votes and is willing to do so.

“I’m not surprised in the least,” Epstein said. “It confirms in
glowing terms, or in very ugly terms if you want to look at it that way,
that Google not only has the power to shift opinions and votes on a
massive scale but they exercise this power. This is what I measure in my
research. So, I can tell you fairly precisely how many votes they can
shift. I can tell you fairly precisely how many votes they shifted in

Carlson asked Epstein how that wasn’t “hacking” an election, to which
Epstein said there was no regulation preventing it and estimated Big
Tech could sway 15 million votes.

Read full article here…

Facebook to Identify ‘Hate Speech’ Suspects to French Courts

Facebook has agreed to provide the names of French users who are suspected of using so-called hate speech on its platform to the courts when requested. Before this mandate, Facebook only provided identification information for terrorism or cases of violence. The European Commission defines illegal hate speech as public conduct that incites violence or hatred to groups of people defined by characteristics such as race, religion, and ethnic origin. One critic said that hate speech is no longer considered part of freedom of speech, it’s now on the same level as terrorism.  The policy could spread to other European countries.

Facebook has agreed to give the
names of French users who are suspected of using hate speech on its
platform to the courts when requested.

The deal is believed to be the first of its kind in the world.

the past, the tech giant has revealed IP addresses and other forms of
identification to French judges – but only in cases relating to
terrorism and violent acts.

Cedric O, French minister for digital affairs, called the deal “huge news”.

hate speech is defined by the European Commission as public conduct
that incites violence or hatred to groups of people defined by
characteristics such as race, religion, and ethnic origin.

Read full article here…

Additional source: