Free speech – Page 5 – an Uncensored Mind

Spying on Americans

I like Tulsi. See makes sense. Probably why she’s not President.

Tulsi Gabbard: Domestic-Terrorism Bill Is ‘a Targeting of Almost Half of the Country’

Doesn’t anyone see the danger here?

Now possible Republican National Guard members – or, god forbid, Trump voters – cannot be trusted to honor their commitment to the Constitution. All of them must be vetted before they are allowed to protect the capital or President Biden:

Trump supporters in National Guard might ‘do something’ to Biden, Dem congressman says

Maybe Democrats will use this as a basis to develop their own, trusted military force of people vetted as loyal to them (rather than the Constitution). Maybe they’ll give this new force a cool name like “Select Security”, or “SS” for short. How about a cool insignia, like a double lightning bolt? Sound familiar?

The ongoing efforts by Democrats (and the media) to associate all who disagree with the incoming administration as a danger to society is troubling. It’s baseless claims like these, and politicians like Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn) who promulgate them, that are the true threat to our democracy.

The purge continues…

…and the Constitution is not immune:

NRA files for bankruptcy, announces it’s ditching New York for Texas

Email marketing service cuts ties with pro-2nd Amendment nonprofit in latest tech censorship

Why is it people don’t recognize that the silencing of opposing viewpoints is no less totalitarian than the purges of Hitler’s Nazi Germany or Stalin’s USSR? They call Republicans “Nazis” and “Fascists”, but who is it using Nazi and Fascist tactics?

I particularly like this quote from New York Attorney General Letitia James regarding the NRA bankruptcy filing:

“…we will not allow the NRA to use this or any other tactic to evade accountability and my office’s oversight.” [emphasis mine]

So tell me: Why should a national civil rights organization, one that defends the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, be under the oversight of a partisan Democrat state Attorney General whose mission is to extinguish long-standing gun rights for the citizens of all states? An Attorney General who’s mission it is to destroy a lobbying powerhouse that represents more than 5 million paying members, and many more non-paying supporters and owners of firearms in America? How do you think the public would feel if Republicans did the same thing to the ACLU? Or the AFL-CIO?

Well, at least in the end they will get exactly the kind of government they deserve. And, of course, they’ll have no way to defend themselves against it.

Why should we listen to “Borat”?

And how is it possible to save a “democracy” by violating one of its primary tenets – the right to fee speech? Besides, why should we take lessons in democracy from the star of “The Dictator”?

Sacha Baron Cohen Calls on YouTube to ‘Ban Trump Save Democracy’

I know a lot of people dislike Trump, but trashing the constitution to spite Trump is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. And the results will be just as ugly.

Me, too, but…

Whatever happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”? Is the new mantra to be “I disapprove of what you say, and so will use every means within my power to silence you”?

McConnell furious with president, supports move to initiate impeachment proceedings: sources

I’m “done” with Trump, too. I just don’t think that impeachment is anything less than an attempt to silence Trump and his ardent supporters. While you might disagree with Trump’s opinions, beliefs or statements it does not mean that he should be prevented from speaking.

It is far more dangerous to claim a right to silence or punish people for what they say than it is to allow them to be heard. To take such a position makes one much more harmful to liberty and democracy than Trump; it strikes at the heart of our republic and the freedom of speech upon which it was founded.

Just a thought…

By now we’ve all heard of the ongoing attempts to silence those who support President Trump or oppose the new administration (read more here, here and here). The general claim by those attempting to silence these groups is that they are protecting the world from violent extremists, but I am beginning to question their motives. I am concerned that instead their goal might be the violent rage that inevitably results when people are silenced and oppressed. Could it be that this is the true end purpose of the oppressors? To generate an explosion of hate and violence that necessarily originates from forced seclusion? An eruption of sufficient magnitude that it will allow the silencers to forever paint their opposition – even those members who are non-violent – as unacceptable and thus exclude them from the political process?

I also find it interesting to note that the outrage leading to suppression of opinion has been decidedly one-sided. Where was this outrage and censorship when BLM protests escalated into violent riots, property destruction and looting? Why are those willing to suppress speech painting all conservatives or republicans with the same wide brush, but fail to do the same for those with whom they agree?

It’s just a few thoughts, so no flame wars, please. As always, spirited discussion is encouraged.

The Parler Solution

Parler, the free-speech competitor of Twitter, is due to go down this evening as a result of Amazon’s decision to drop them as a client of their Amazon Web Services (AWS). Amazon’s reasoning: “…a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms.” I’ve discussed the egregious nature of Amazon’s conduct on this matter in another article so I won’t cover it again here. But silencing those with whom you disagree – no matter the level of disagreement or how they express it – is not the answer. In addition, I am particularly concerned when those who are silenced are on the opposite end of the political spectrum from those performing the silencing.

It has always been the goal of political despots to silence their opposition, and when calls for the silencing of some have a one-sided source we are right to question their motives. This is of particular importance when those affecting the silencing are under the thumb of the government. In this case Apple, Google and Amazon are or have been the subject of antitrust investigations. This begs the question: is the silencing an act by private companies, or private companies fearful of their government? Are they acting on their own behalf, or on the behalf of the government in hopes of currying favor in upcoming legal or regulatory actions? Do you all realize the significance of the latter case?

In any event, the suppression of opposition speech is not the answer to the problem of violent online content cited by Amazon. The purpose of free speech is so opposition voices can be heard, thus permitting differing opinions to be tempered by discussion. Yes, we will always have extremists – but they are not kept in check by isolation. They are instead kept in check by popular opinion, by those who offer their own dissenting viewpoint and argue the better position. Attempting to silence the voice of opposition, forcing it into dark alleys and private chat rooms, will only allow it to fester unchallenged.

So what then is the answer to violent speech on social media? It’s the same solution applied to any other violent speech. If the speech in question rises to the level of criminal activity – for instance, if it makes or incites direct threats to people or property, or incites riots in general – then law enforcement should take whatever action is allowed under the law. If the speech is otherwise allowed under the 1st Amendment and the laws of our country then it should be left alone for discussion among the people. Note that it does not matter whether or not you think the speech is appropriate; your opinion does not negate the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is the law that determines whether or not a particular level of expression is outside the bounds of protected speech, not your sensibilities.

To implement this solution we only need to identify the speakers so that law enforcement can track down those whose speech violates the law. This identification should be kept private rather than public; people should be allowed to retain their anonymity online. Without such anonymity speech could be suppressed over fear of illegal retaliation or harassment, which cannot be tolerated in a free society (Remember Hitler’s “brownshirts”, who harassed and bullied their opposition into silence?). But social media sites should have true and correct information on their users so that – under court-issued warrant – the speakers can be identified when they break the law. This is already the norm with most social media sites; virtually all have some sort of user authentication process sufficient to identify the user (if not, they could always ask the great overseer, Google, to identify them…). However, all speech that falls under the category of legal should be allowed – whether or not it offends your sensibilities. There is no right under the Constitution or the laws of this nation to not be offended by the thoughts, ideas or speech of others.

It should be up to the law whether or not a particular level of speech is heard. From there it is the people’s decision whether or not to listen. But under no circumstances should the decision with respect to what we hear be left to companies with ulterior or political motives, particularly those who may be acting as pawns on behalf of the government.

Democracy may die in darkness, but liberty perishes in silence.

Oppression = tyranny

For Apple IOS users, there is no reasonable alternative to the Apple App store. By removing the Parler app from their store, Apple has effectively silenced Parler with respect to all Apple IOS app users who have not already downloaded the app. Note, too, that Apple can summarily disable the app for existing users if they so choose; watch for that action in the coming days:

Amazon And Apple Drop Parler

Amazon’s actions are just as egregious, effectively giving Parler only days to find a new service provider – something that I’m sure Amazon executives know is a virtual impossibility. In my opinion the action was timed specifically to silence Parler users as the inauguration of the Biden/Harris platform approaches. Think about what Amazon has done: this is the real-world equivalent of having your storefront landlord lock you out of your shop with only a few days notice simply because they don’t like what you say. Worse, it effectively silences the opposition to the incoming administration – one of the very acts that the 1st Amendment was meant to protect.

Coupled with Google’s removal of the Parler app from their Play store, these actions appear to be a coordinated attack on speech with which these companies do not agree. But it is much worse than that; it could also be seen as an attack on free speech by the government.

Pretending that the incoming administration and their political party could have nothing to do with these actions by Apple, Amazon and Google is naive. Google is currently the subject of an antitrust lawsuit by the government – a lawsuit that could be negated by the new administration. Apple and Amazon have also been the subject of antitrust investigations, and may face additional investigations in the future. Appeasing the incoming administration by silencing their opposition may be a strategic move by these companies to stave off damaging regulatory or antitrust actions. I’ve warned in the past how the threat of government action against social media and Internet companies could be used by political entities to sidestep 1st amendment protections and censor speech. And before you say that it’s OK because Trump and his followers are fascists, let’s take a look back in history at those who implemented similar censorship measures and why.

The excuse provided by those seeking to censor their opposition is that their actions prevent the potential for tyranny. However, this assertion is absurd. Tyranny does not come from speech; it comes from the oppression of speech. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Kim Il-sung – all these “leaders” came to and retained power through the ruthless oppression of their opposition. The effective silencing of the opposition for the incoming administration by the companies noted above – and by proxy the incoming administration itself – are the true threat to our democracy. We must not allow this oppression to continue; we must take a stand against those who seek to negate the 1st Amendment of the constitution, no matter how you feel about the speech they seek to oppress.

The government or incoming administration may be able to do these companies harm if they do not do as demanded, but we have power, too. We can boycott the companies seeking to silence a significant share of our population. We can stop using their products; we can stop using their services; we can stop patronizing their advertisers. We can shut them down; we can bankrupt them.What good then is protection from government regulatory and antitrust actions when you have no business to protect?

Regardless of your feelings for the opposition, we must take a stand. We must let these companies know that we cherish our freedom of speech and will not relinquish it without a fight; that we will not accept them silencing their foes, now or in the future; that we will not stand idly by for the tyranny that must follow when an opposition voice is silenced.

Boycott these companies to let them know you do not accept their judgement over your own. Buy no new Apple products and make no purchases from the Apple app store; do not use Google search services, purchase products from their advertisers, or use the Google Play store. Order nothing from Amazon, and do not patronize sellers who use Amazon’s storefront services. Do without for now if you have to, buy direct to bypass Amazon if you must, and find an alternative source for Google products and services. Start a new hashtag: #BoycottOppressionNow.

Send the message loud and clear:

Do not limit what we can hear; we can decide on our own when to listen.

Opposition censorship

I am deeply troubled by left-leaning social media (and other) companies attempting to limit speech through platform censorship, and by the double-standard applied when it comes to censorship of partizan political opinion. Their treatment with respect to President Trump’s messaging in regards to the capital protestors is the latest example of this one-sided treatment. That’s not to say I agree with the President’s opinions or comments, only that he has the right to express them without censorship.

Here’s an example:

Facebook blocks Trump indefinitely after Capitol riot response

“We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great,” Zuckerberg said in a statement Thursday. “Therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his Facebook and Instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete.”

And where were you when Antifa rioters stormed Portland and Seattle, Mr. Zuckerberg? How many Antifa or BLM members, and their political supporters, did you kick off of your site as a result of those very destructive riots? And just what are the “risks” that have brought you to this decision to ban Trump’s comments? That the President might be heard and his claims believed? Who are you to determine what others are allowed to hear and believe, true or not? People can, and should, think for themselves, and your firm should not interfere with that process.

Silencing opinions with which you do not agree and leaving no other but your own for people to accept is the height of arrogance; it is also a tactic that will not work. It is precisely when people believe that they are not being heard that they resort to the violent protests we saw yesterday at the capital. You are doing no one a favor by silencing the opinion of the President and his supporters on social media, you are simply pushing their voice into isolation to fester unquestioned.

I apply the same rules to the right as I do to the left (unlike you, Mr. Zuckerberg): peaceful protests are acceptable, violent protests are not. The actions of rioters at the capital yesterday was unacceptable, no question. However, unless Trump clearly incited the protestors to riot – which by the Trump statements I’ve read he did not, even granted his continued claim of a “stolen” election – his speech should be as protected as any other and he should be allowed to express it without fear of reprisal or censorship.

Now, in Mr. Zuckerberg’s defense, Facebook is a private company and can restrict use of its platform if it pleases. However, Facebook enjoys the protections of Section 230 by virtue of not restricting its content beyond the offensive or indecent – it acts not as a publisher, selecting and choosing what to publish, but rather as a printer for all to use. But if Facebook wants to exert control over content, then it’s time these protections are lifted. They are either a privately controlled publisher subject to libel laws, or a public forum for all speech with the protections offered by Section 230. Facebook should not have it both ways.

Here’s another example of a censorship action, albeit a “sideways” attack on speech:

Shopify closes websites associated with Trump following riots

How would you feel if your storefront landlord decided he didn’t like your speech regarding a particular political position, and so locked you out of your store? Because that’s exactly what Shopify is digitally doing, as noted in the above-cited story. And in doing so – much like when Google demonetizes web sites over their content – they prevent revenue streams that support the speech in question. Such actions are no less censorship than any other form.

Finally, today a slew of additional censorship actions were taken – including this one preventing users from downloading an app required to use Twitter’s new, censorship-free competitor, Parler:

Google suspends Parler app from Play Store over failure to moderate egregious content

A disturbing excerpt from this story:

A spokesperson for Google confirmed in a statement to Fox News that its “longstanding policies” require that apps with user-generated content have measures in place to remove certain obscene content – including posts that incite violence. Developers agree to those terms.

So now Google is the arbiter of what is acceptable on the Internet? Who made them autarch of the Web? What is most disturbing about this action is that Google is currently the subject of a government antitrust suit. How do we know whether they are acting on their own behalf, or on the new administration’s behalf in an attempt to curry favor with respect to the government’s lawsuit? I’ve warned previously about the potential for government censorship via threats of regulation or or other action against private companies; looks like I might have been right.

As far as Trump’s actions go with respect to the protest at the capital, in my (humble) opinion his actions were negligent but not criminal. He certainly did little to stop the protest, and may have even encouraged it. Nor did he act swiftly to calm the protesters and restore order when their protest turned into a riot. But nothing in what I have read regarding his posts and statements expressly encouraged violence or rioting, only protesting a la BLM. This is no different than when Democrat politicians encouraged BLM protests, many of which also turned into violent riots. How many of these Democrat politicians were banned for their efforts to incite violence (I’m betting zero…)?

No one believed that Trump had incited riotous behavior prior to the riot actually occurring. If Trump’s comments had been taken to inspire violence then it would have been obvious to the normal observer, and alarms could have been raised to prepare for the protest. The fact that additional security – which was available from the Army National Guard – was not requested, and no exceptional security steps taken prior to the protest, is proof that no one considered Trump’s statements sufficient to inspire a riot.

The fact is that the responsibility for the violence at the capital protest falls strictly on the rioters – just as is the media’s position when BLM protests turn violent. President Trump was not responsible, no matter his unflattering, anti-Democrat rhetoric.

These attempts to silence Trump and/or his followers are political, and we should see them for what they are: opposition censorship. And opposition censorship is a very worrisome thing – far more worrisome than the narcissistic ramblings of a soon-to-be ex-President acting like a 10-year-old.

(I apologize to all the 10-year-olds I might have offended with that last remark.)