Category: Free speech

So why did they need to inform Congress?

This is an update to a previous post regarding how a conservative publisher was kicked off of Facebook’s ad platform for violating their rules against “low quality or disruptive content.” The update: Facebook has changed it’s mind and is reinstating their access:

Conservative publisher calls for explanation after Facebook reverses ad ban: ‘They never told us anything’

The real story: Why did they have to notify Congress? From the article cited above:

“They told multiple members of Congress that we were reinstated, but they’ve never actually contacted us directly.”

If Congress is advised with respect to Facebook’s censorship (even before the censored company was notified of Facebook’s decision), doesn’t that constitute government involvement in censorship?  Wouldn’t that be a violation of the 1st Amendment?

Where is the press when you need them? Can you say “investigative report”?

I have a problem…

…with people using the civil court system to silence those with whom they diagree – even if those being silenced are racist, misogynistic bastards.

Jury finds rally organizers liable for the violence that broke out in Charlottesville

As this story points out, the lower standard for civil court judgements allows people to vote their emotions instead of the facts. Such lawsuits have a chilling effect on speech, and is very concerning to me. After all, I want these people to speak – how else will we identify them?

in any event, these people were not the cause of the violence at Charleston. Only the people who actually committed violence (that was not in self-defense) should have been charged or sued. Suing these other people – for money they don’t have, BTW – is solely for the purpose of stifling free speech. You would be wise to recognize it as such; after all, next time it might be you or your opinions that are silenced.

I also find it interesting that BLM organizers have not been similarly sued for damages caused during BLM protests (pronounced “riots”). Go figure.

Biden regime seeking control over the press?

I agree with the ACLU – this is troubling. It’s also reminiscent of the tactics used in 3rd world countries to bring the press under control:

ACLU warns of ‘precedent’ set by DOJ raid of Project Veritas: ‘Serious consequences’

I learned as a child that America was a Republic. I guess now we’re a “Banana Republic”…

Scary…

Halloween is upon us; here’s the latest scary American horror story:

A judge, at the request of the city of Chicago, has told Chicago Fraternal Order of Police president John Catanzara that he can no longer advocate his opposition to a Chicago vax mandate to police officers:

Late Friday, a judge granted the city’s request for a temporary injunction barring Catanzara from making any public comments that encourage FOP members to disobey the city’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate until the next hearing on the city’s lawsuit on Oct. 25.

This is the “freedom” democrats like Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot want to offer us? The freedom to speak the party line,  or not at all?

Each person is guaranteed the right to speak free of government interference (remember that pesky 1st Amendment?). The freedom to speak must never be predicated on whether or not the speech is deemed to be “true” – particularly when it’s the government determining “truth”. Chicago’s request, and the judges subsequent ruling, should be promptly overruled – by the courts if possible, by the people if necessary.

Sen. Warren is dangerous

Sen. Warren now wants to break up Facebook and other social media giants to “…protect our democracy.” From whom, Ms. Warren? From ourselves? Or from you?

Sen. Warren sounds alarm on ‘The View’: Break up Facebook before 2022 elections and ‘true steal comes along’

An interesting quote from the news article linked above:

“We also have to do breaking up Facebook now, now, now, before we are facing down the 2022 and then the 2024 elections, and that the true steal comes along, and that is the minority party that has ideas that are not supported by the majority of Americans gets to hang onto power. That is wrong and it will break our democracy,” she said on ABC’s “The View.”

I’ve got news for you, Ms. Warren – if the “…minority party has ideas that are not supported by the majority of Americans…” then they won’t win the election. That’s how elections (and democracies) work. It is your actions to control the means and media of speech that are the true threat to our democracy.

Don’t get me wrong; Facebook is dangerous, too – potentially more so then Sen. Warren. But the solution is not to turn Facebook into a government-regulated Ministry of Propaganda. Instead, we should work to remove the regulatory protections offered under Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1934 (revised 1996) that allow social media companies to arbitrarily censor speech. It is this ability to control what can be heard that is so dangerous to our democracy.

Censorship by any other name…

…will never smell like a rose.

OK, while I agree that this site’s function is reprehensible, they should not be silenced simply because the woke left control most of the Internet speech platforms:

GoDaddy Is Booting A Site That Sought Anonymous Tips About Texas Abortions

This is the functional equivalent of the phone company refusing to provide phone service for a pro-life lobbying group. A company offering a service to the general public – particularly one whose service is effectively the dissemination of speech – should not be allowed to discriminate based on the content of that speech.

For those of you who believe that the censorship of speech with which you disagree is a perfectly acceptable practice: don’t worry; your time is coming. Once censorship is allowed in the public forum of the Internet it won’t be too long before full censorship is attained. The result will be the same as it has always been: the elimination of free speech, the establishment of propaganda centers and the rise of tyranny. Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Moa Tse Tung, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Suddam Hussein – all of them used censorship to gain and keep power. Do you not see the danger we are facing, even when only the voices with which you disagree are silenced? Where do you think it will end?

Does anyone really think that freedom of speech being guaranteed in the 1st Amendment was only a coincidence?

Multicultural = everyone but you?

Two white ASU students were allegedly harassed into leaving the ASU “multicultural” center by students who insisted that their skin color and political views were not welcome in that space:

College students confront White peers with ‘Police Lives Matter’ sticker: ‘You are racist’

Watch the video for yourself here or here.

It seems hypocritical to me that someone is being called a racist because of the color of their skin.  As for the student’s political views, why should their views be censored over any others? The right to free speech is central to liberty; the fact that some speech makes you “uncomfortable” is a necessary byproduct of that liberty. It is not a reason to silence the voice of those with whom you disagree.

Harassment of any student for any reason cannot be tolerated. The harassing students should be harshly punished for their blatant attack on these two students simply for the color of their skin and political beliefs.

Government influence over FarceBook

When the government controls social media (or even has input), then social media acts as an extension of the government and should fall under 1st Amendment protections.

Critics slam the White House after Psaki reveals it’s consulting with Facebook to ‘flag misinformation’

Note the key quote from Jen Psaki contained in this article:

“Within the Surgeon General’s Office, we’re flagging posts for Facebook that spread disinformation,” Psaki said. [emphasis mine]

The key here is her assertion that they are flagging posts for Facebook, not on Facebook (like the rest of us). This implies a direct censorship relationship with Facebook to remove posts with which the White House does not agree. If you can’t understand the significance of such actions by your government – or see the parallel to socialist authoritarian regimes throughout history who have sought control over what the people see and hear – well, then you should be proud of your “progressive” education.

The government is free to express its opinion on Facebook or any other social media site, but it should not be allowed to act against the rights of others to express their own opinion (or to simply be heard).

Unmitigated gall

So it’s a human right to be able to access the Internet? This from the company that controls who can speak and what they can say?

Twitter declares access to its platform a ‘human right’ amid censorship of conservatives

It’s actually funny given the circumstances; it seems Twitter had blocked a tweet from the Nigerian president, so their government blocked Twitter from Nigeria. Fire with fire, as they say…

Here’s a particularly interesting quote from the article attributed to Twitter corporate:

“We are deeply concerned by the blocking of Twitter in Nigeria,” Twitter’s Public Policy division tweeted in response. “Access to the free and #OpenInternet is an essential human right in modern society.

Free and open? But only if it’s moderated by Twitter? Only if the opinions expressed are Twitter-approved? What about free and open access for all, without Twitter’s  “Ministry of Truth” filtering our thoughts or controlling what or who we hear?

The sad thing is that the obvious hypocrisy of their position will change nothing for Twitter. People are simply too stupid to see the danger and too lazy to find/fund a free-speech alternative.