Category: Free speech

I hope Elon pulls off his Twitter revamp, but I am seriously concerned by those who are attempting to effectively “de-platform” Twitter as payback for Musk having the gall to support free speech (and for removing the obvious left-wing bias that Twitter lefties had enjoyed).

Elon Musk says what’s next for Twitter advertisers if they bow to activists demands and leave the platform

The silencing of opposing viewpoints, which is the goal of this effort, is the true danger to our democracy. We must remove these people from power – both political and sociological. They are the true “Nazis” of our day (Think not? Look up how Hitler and his Brownshirts harassed their opposition into silence; the parallels are uncanny).

Here’s a thought for the “new” Twitter:

Free speech is important, but so is free listening. But the control should be on the listening side, not the speech side. Everyone should be allowed to speak, but by the same logic they should be allowed to limit what they hear (but not who others can hear! ). To facilitate this end, I propose that you create two fundamental classes of user account: Private and Public.

Private accounts are membership-only access, and have only a cursory public page announcing their existence and how to join. The posts on these accounts can be seen and responded to by members. No member may be denied the right to read or respond to any post. However, members can be removed at the request of the account owner. If the private account owner decides to remove a member, all posts by the removed member – and any posts by other members, including the account owner, in response to those of the removed member – will immediately be deleted.  This prevents the account owner from continuing or referring to the removed member’s communication threads without the removed member having the ability to respond.

Public accounts can be read and responded to by all. However, like the private account owner, the public account should be able to restrict what they view. Thus, the public account owner can block their own view of posts from those whom they don’t want to hear. This will not prevent any other user from viewing or responding to a post on the account unless they, too, block the user. An option will exist for a user to automatically adopt the public account owner’s block list while viewing that public account, but this will have no affect on the viewing of posts on any other account. Also, while the contents of the blocked post will not be seen by the owner or viewer who has blocked or has accepted the blocked list of the public account owner, the fact that a response exists will not be masked and a link will remain in its place that any user – whether or not the post is from an account they block – can click on to view the blocked response directly. This will prevent the silencing of voices with which the account owner does not agree, while still giving people the opportunity to maintain the right to control what they hear.

What say you, Elon? Worth a shot?

I’m sure it will make the Nazi’s – pronounced “Democratic Socialists” – nuts. Oh, well; added bonus… 🙂

Biden’s recently-announced “Disinformation Governance Board” is – as many have noted – reminiscent of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth as described in his dystopian novel, 1984. And just as ominous.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas initially claimed that the Disinformation Governance Board was created to combat misinformation ahead of the 2022 midterms. After public outcry its mission was re-stated as to combat “disinformation that presents a security threat to the homeland.”  The first reason is bad enough; the second sounds too much like “…protecting the Fatherland from public dissent”. Is it a coincidence that Hitler’s Ministry of Propaganda issued a rule that ordered the omission of anything “calculated to weaken the strength of the Reich abroad or at home”? Sound familiar yet? And you plebeians called Trump a modern day Hitler…

But wait; there’s more! The administration has secretly been working on this new “Disinformation Governance Board”, as noted by its new Executive Director Nina Jankowicz, who tweeted after Mayorkas’ announcement:

“Cat’s out of the bag: here’s what I’ve been up to the past two months, and why I’ve been quiet on here…”

Can you imagine anything more disturbing than the secret development of a government board at a police agency to curb speech that the administration deems “disinformation”? I don’t care how far left you are, surely you can see the danger of assigning the regulation of speech – any speech – to an agency with police powers.

By establishing the Disinformation Governance Board as an arm of law enforcement this administration has sent the clear message that it wants to literally police speech. And for this you should be worried, no matter towards which side of the political spectrum you lean.

Oh, and before I forget: Heil Biden! (No sense getting myself thrown into a gulag just yet…)

PS: I predict that edicts from the “Disinformation Governance Board” will be used as an excuse by social media companies to justify the censorship of certain voices. The board was probably created at the behest of social media companies to free them from being blamed for their censorship actions directly (It’s not our fault; the government made us do it!).

A search on Fox News for “Disinformation Governance Board” (the government’s newly created and very Orwellian “Ministry of Truth”):

Mayorkas testifies DHS is creating ‘Disinformation Governance Board’

White House defends DHS ‘disinformation’ board: ‘Not sure who opposes that effort’

Musk breaks silence on Biden disinformation board formation after Twitter buyout: ‘Discomforting’

Hawley rips Homeland Security ‘disinformation’ board for ‘policing’ free speech, instead of protecting border

Jordan asks Mayorkas if new DHS ‘disinformation’ board will look into Fauci, Walensky statements

New Disinformation Governance Board better suited for dictatorships: Gabbard

Biden’s disinformation director referred to Hunter’s laptop as a ‘Trump campaign product’

and many, many more…

A search on NPR for “Disinformation Governance Board”:

Crickets.

And you doubt the bias of the press? Shame on you.

Robert Reich, a professor at my alma mater, is a hypocrite. He’s also a partisan liberal tool. But hey – you can’t win them all.

Reich recently wrote an opinion piece for the Guardian regarding Elon Musk’s bid for Twitter, calling Musk’s libertarian vision of an uncontrolled internet “…dangerous rubbish.” Sure, Robert – it’s so much better when it’s controlled by a cadre of partisan far-left elitists who believe that the truth is whatever they decide. I think Bari Weiss said it best:

“… a new consensus has emerged … that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.”

It is my belief that Robert Reich thinks he is one of the “…enlightened few…”, and will remain so as long as his far-left friends control social media platforms. Good luck with that, Robert.

In any event, here are some excerpts from Reich’s opinion piece that demonstrate the extreme hypocrisy (and idiocy) of his position:

The Russian people know little about Putin’s war on Ukraine because Putin has blocked their access to the truth, substituting propaganda and lies.

Uh… and when Twitter locked out the New York Post for its report on Hunter Biden’s laptop, effectively preventing Twitter users from being exposed to the contents of the report (a report that has since been substantiated), that wasn’t “blocking their access to the truth”? Was it Elon Musk who was responsible for the propaganda and lies substituted in its place? I don’t think so…

At least the US responded to Trump’s lies. Trump had 88 million Twitter followers before Twitter took him off its platform … (Trump’s social media accounts were also suspended on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitch and TikTok.)

These moves were necessary to protect American democracy.

So let me see if I understand: it was necessary to silence an American politician to protect the American democracy through which their right to speak is guaranteed? Are you kidding me?!?

And just who is it that gets to decide what is truth and what is lie, and what do we do when it turns out that they are wrong? How does it protect “American democracy” when a report is blocked by social media as false, but later turns out to be true?  Isn’t the real problem that here that the social media companies want to replace their judgement for our own?

Musk advocates free speech but in reality it’s just about power.

And the Twitter board that swallowed a poison pill just to maintain their power, the power to silence any voice not in alignment with their “truth” – that’s not about power? I think I’ll take my chances with Elon, thank you very much.

But here’s where Reich’s hypocrisy really shines (A little background – Reich’s upset that Musk has blocked Reich from Musk’s twitter feed):

What “improvements” does Musk have in mind for Twitter? Will he use his clout over Twitter to prevent users with tens of millions of followers from blocking people who criticize them? I doubt it.

 Free speech means I am free to speak; it does not mean I can force you to listen (or that you can force me to listen to you). It also means that when I control the venue where I speak that I can restrict access as I see fit – as Musk has done by blocking Reich from his twitter feed (a venue he controls). Reich sees this as violating the principles of free speech; however, nothing prevents Reich from responding on his own Twitter feed, which Musk is free to read (if he so chooses and if allowed by Reich). Note that this is far different than blocking your detractors (under the guise of allegedly “false” statements) from Twitter entirely – an action Reich has condoned against some (ex.: Trump).

To put it in simpler terms: If Musk rents a hotel conference room he can control who enters and who can speak, but he cannot force anyone to attend. But Reich, if refused entry to Elon’s conference, can rent his own conference room in the same hotel and invite anyone he wants.  And this is where Reich’s view fails; he believes that it is a violation of free speech to be blocked from Musk’s conference room, but at the same time believes that closing the hotel to his own detractors – i.e.: kicking those with whom he disagrees off the platform entirely – is not. Hypocrisy, or stupidity? You be the judge.

Will Musk use his clout to let Trump back on? I fear he will.

And why shouldn’t he? I agree that Trump’s a tool, but that doesn’t mean that his voice should be silenced. I don’t want my judgement replaced by Twitter’s board of directors; I can decide for myself to whom I will listen – but only if they are allowed to speak. Twitter has no business making that decision for me.  And the fact that Trump had 88M followers is proof that many might disagree with Twitter’s decision. But the truth of the matter is that Reich and his ilk did not want to silence Trump; they wanted instead to silence his 88M followers. And that’s the real danger of supporting selective censorship based on the “truth” as decided by people like Reich.

In Musk’s vision of Twitter and the internet, he’d be the wizard behind the curtain – projecting on the world’s screen a fake image of a brave new world empowering everyone.

In reality, that world would be dominated by the richest and most powerful people in the world, who wouldn’t be accountable to anyone for facts, truth, science or the common good. [emphasis mine]

You mean people like Jack Dorsey? Mark Zuckerberg? The left-wing elitists who have their ear?

No thanks, Robert – I’ll take my chances with Elon. I’d rather have free speech where I get to decide to whom I’ll listen rather then depend on a partisan entity to decide who I can hear.

Normalizing our role as the school yard wimp, handing our lunch money over to bullies like China and Russia, Nancy Pelosi is asking Olympic athletes to bite their tongue rather than risk the ire of their Chinese hosts:

Pelosi warns US athletes not to risk ‘incurring the anger’ of ‘ruthless’ Chinese government during Olympics

Stifling free speech so as to not offend (i.e.: cancel culture) is bad enough; but so as to not offend our new Chinese masters? Really? What’s next; instructing our athletes to lose so as to not offend those who wish to destroy us?

I really thought Trump was a tool, but at least we didn’t get walked on during his watch (no one wants to challenge a crazy man…).

Whoopie Goldberg claims that the the holocaust wasn’t about race; 6 million Jews who were there (and many more who weren’t) disagree. She makes a non-apology (“I stand corrected”, hardly sounds like an apology to me!) and everyone – on the left, anyway – forgives.

Ilya Shapiro states that the best choice for appointment to the Supreme Court is an Indian-American progressive of Hindu faith,  Sri Srinivasan. He also states that due to Biden’s promise to progressives we must instead “…get lesser black woman.” Ilya profusely apologizes for his poor choice of words (“I sincerely and deeply apologize…”), even though a reasonable person would assume that ANY choice other than Sri Srinivasan would be considered a “lesser” choice by Shapiro – irrespective of the color of their skin. The left goes nuts and demands he be fired from Georgetown law, citing his statement as “racist”.

I don’t have a problem with Whoopi’s statement; she’s entitled to her opinion (on which she was promptly corrected by millions). But I do have a problem with the double standard afforded liberals vs. conservatives for their poor choice of words when it is clear that no malice was intended.

We’ll have to see if Georgetown has the courage to stand up for free speech. I’ve got my fingers crossed.

Joe Rogan has become a target of the frightful left:

Joe Rogan, Spotify controversy continues with Graham Nash, Indie Arie pulling from platform

Nash provided a statement cited in the article above saying in part:

“There is a difference between being open to varying viewpoints on a matter and knowingly spreading false information which some 270 medical professionals have derided as not only false but dangerous.

No, there isn’t. Medical professionals have differing opinions, and some will be in the minority. Being “…open to varying viewpoints…” means being open to those minority viewpoints, whether or not you agree. Claiming that only some are correct (and just where did you get your medical degree, Graham?) and therefor no others should be heard is anathema to free speech.

Arie provided an even more bizarre, contradictory statement. From the article cited above:

“Neil Young opened a door that I MUST walk through,” she wrote Monday. I believe in freedom of speech,” The artist wrote. “However, I find Joe Rogan problematic for reasons OTHER than his Covid interviews… FOR ME ITS ALL HIS language around race.”

Soooo… she believes in freedom of speech – except when she doesn’t like what is being said? Where on earth (except North Korea) is that the definition of “free speech”? But it gets worse; she goes on to rally against Rogan not for what he says, but how much he is paid:

She continued: What I am talking about is RESPECT – who gets it and who doesn’t. Paying musicians a Fraction of a  penny? And  HIM  $100M? This shows the type of company they are and the company that they keep.”

Envious much, Ms. Arie? Because it sounds like you’re mad that Rogan’s popularity garners him a bigger paycheck than you. Are you trying to shut him down out of jealousy, because your work is valued so much less than his?

I don’t listen to Joe Rogan; that’s my choice. But those who claim that he should not be heard are dangerous.

Hang in there, Spotify! I’m rooting for you!

Freedom of speech is usually one of the first casualties:

Washington Democratic Gov. Inslee wants to make lying a crime in certain circumstances

What effect do you think it will have on speech when your opinions – if deemed “lies” by government overseers – may result in your being jailed? And just who gets to determine the “truth”? The administration in power? Social media companies? Democratic donors?

Beware the people (or social media companies) that claim to be the only true arbiters of the truth.