Hi Victor-Hugo,
Your account has been restricted due to a violation of LinkedIn’s User Agreement relating to the following false content:
1. GEORGE FLOYD FULL UNCENSORED VIDEO FINAL MOMENT ANALYZED IS THIS FALSE FLAG ATTACK TO INCITE RIOTS
https://lnkd.in/efWnXBH
Content Creation Time: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:22:58 GMT
2. GEORGE FLOYD MURDER PARADOX VICTOR HUGO NOSTRADAMUS FORECAST FALSE FLAG ATTACK RACE WAR NYC RIOTS
https://lnkd.in/eazr8_J
Content Creation Time: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:27:34 GMT
3. Josephine M. Kim That’s racist against Hispanics. Don’t Hispanic Lives Matter too? Can you please share information on alumni of Hispanics or do they not exist? https://youtu.be/wimb24QpCM8
Content Creation Time: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 06:26:46 GMT
4. Making several conspiracy claims such as Bill Gates is working for the Chinese government
Content Creation Time: Fri, 29 May 2020 13:19:41 GMT
5. Sharing a video with a conspiracy theory on how China uses political correctness etc to take over USA
Content Creation Time: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 07:47:26 GMT
If you believe the restriction was made in error, you can appeal our decision by responding to this email with the information requested below. After you’ve submitted the information, we’ll review the case and inform you of our determination.
• State why you believe the restriction was incorrect.
• Provide sources or materials that support your position.
Please review the LinkedIn User Agreement for reference: https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement
Thank you for your patience.
Regards,
Chester
Member Safety And Recovery Senior Consultant
Dear Chester,
The President of the United States, U.S. Justice Department and Congress have filed Executive Order 13925 on May 28, 2020, Antitrust Lawsuits and are investigating censorship, racism and abuse of regulations by big tech companies such as LinkedIn.
Executive Order 13925 states:
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, Start Printed Page 34080and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “`Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
I will be forwarding your letter in my complaint to the White House and in my FCC Consumer Complaint Center filing. Please provide evidence in support of your racist claim denouncing my right as a Hispanic to ask on a Business platform about social programs and work programs for Hispanics. The evidence provided by LinkedIn should be fact based and not opinion or speculation so as to verify in a court of law whether Linkedin has ceased functioning as a passive bulletin board and ought to be viewed and treated as a content creator.
3. Josephine M. Kim That’s racist against Hispanics. Don’t Hispanic Lives Matter too? Can you please share information on alumni of Hispanics or do they not exist? https://youtu.be/wimb24QpCM8
Content Creation Time: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 06:26:46 GMT
Please provide evidence in support of your racist claims denouncing my right as a Hispanic to think critically on a business platform with prospective employers seeking to employ minority critical thinkers who can analyze historical content. The evidence provided by LinkedIn should be fact based and not opinion or speculation so as to verify in a court of law whether Linkedin has ceased functioning as a passive bulletin board and ought to be viewed and treated as a content creator.
1. GEORGE FLOYD FULL UNCENSORED VIDEO FINAL MOMENT ANALYZED IS THIS FALSE FLAG ATTACK TO INCITE RIOTS
https://lnkd.in/efWnXBH
Content Creation Time: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:22:58 GMT
2. GEORGE FLOYD MURDER PARADOX VICTOR HUGO NOSTRADAMUS FORECAST FALSE FLAG ATTACK RACE WAR NYC RIOTS
https://lnkd.in/eazr8_J
Content Creation Time: Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:27:34 GMT
2. 4. Making several conspiracy claims such as Bill Gates is working for the Chinese government
Content Creation Time: Fri, 29 May 2020 13:19:41 GMT
5. Sharing a video with a conspiracy theory on how China uses political correctness etc to take over USA
Content Creation Time: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 07:47:26 GMT
The FCC’s Consumer Complaint Center about an Internet-related issue may share the information you provide, including your name and contact information, with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Your complaint may be used to investigate cases or in a legal proceeding.
I will also be following up with media outlets that I have made aware of LinkedIn’s racist policy towards Hispanic minorities seeking employment on your business platform by sharing this information with them including LinkedIn’s response, with evidence, to back the slanderous claims of “false content” and “Making several conspiracy claims” that LinkedIn has made against me, Victor-Hugo Vaca II, a public figure, in your letter dated 6/19/20, regarding Case Reference # 200612-009193.
Respectfully,
Victor-Hugo Vaca II
*****************************************************************************************
