Category: General

Social Media and Free Speech

Now, for the record, I don’t particularly agree with the views of the author who is the subject of this news article. However, he is entitled to his opinion nonetheless and he is free to disseminate his views to any who will listen. So long as his words falls within the court-established limits of free speech, he should be allowed to speak.

That being said, when a large social media service such as Twitter denies speech that would otherwise be protected under the 1st amendment then they have crossed a subtle line. At what point do they become political/social advocates who simply use censorship to mold society in their image? As these social media firms try to become the primary, necessary means of communication for the masses, such control over speech can be troublesome.

To put this into another perspective, what would you think if the telephone company refused to provide you telephone service because they didn’t agree with what you might say? What if the users of “free” email services had their emails scanned for “incorrect” thoughts, which were deleted or corrected by the overseers of these communication providers? Can you imagine the impact such activities might have on an election? Foreign interference with our elections be damned; social media censorship of political and social ideas should be of much greater concern.

Keep in mind that this is a special case: Twitter has not censored an account, but instead blocked ads from this entity from appearing on their service. However, we need to keep in mind that the same rules that apply to bakers and florists must also apply to advertising domains, i.e.: you cannot discriminate against those with whose beliefs you disagree. If a cake baker should not refuse to bake a wedding cake for a couple with whose lifestyle the baker does not agree, why should Twitter be able to refuse an ad from an author with whose philosophy Twitter does not agree?

Whether or not you agree with the views of the communications provider or the source of the censored speech, you should be concerned that one day it may be you who is at odds with Twitter.

I’ve covered a similar topic previously here.

“…mind your own business…”

A soon-to-be-famous quote, I’m sure. From the Washington Examiner:

“Look, it is none of anyone’s business what someone who is a member of the private sector decides to accept in terms of compensation,” Wasserman Schultz added. “With all due respect to anyone who chooses to comment publicly on what Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or anyone earns as a member of the private sector, it’s just MYOB.”

And yet Wasserman Schultz has previously made the following statement about Trump’s tax returns:

“Trump’s refusal to release his tax returns raises serious questions about what he’s hiding…”

Whatever happened to “…as a member of the private sector, it’s just MYOB…”?

Oh; that’s right. It’s called hypocrisy.

Criminal illegal aliens are “immigrants”?

Everyone should read this article. Pay close attention to the criminal illegal aliens that California State Senate President pro Tem Kevin DeLeon is defending as “immigrants”.

I am seriously concerned by  DeLeon’s characterization of these people as “immigrants”. These are criminals, plain and simple – thieves, drug dealers, gang members, and other felons. Would you call a  squatter illegally occupying your property a “tenant”?  Would you call a car thief a “valet”? How about a bank robber; would they be a “financial assistant”? Why then must a criminal illegal alien be considered an “immigrant”?

I understand DeLeon’s motives; by eliminating the distinction between criminal illegal aliens and immigrants he and his ilk hope to make the war on criminals appear to be a war on immigrants. And it appears their tactics are working – they are winning the immigration propaganda war .

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – Don’t be sheeple, people. And don’t let these California politicians convince you that it’s OK to turn our melting pot into a dumpster.