Constitutional Law, Free Speech, Lawyering, Media

Ron Paul Posts Criticism of Censorship on Social Media Shortly Before Facebook Blocks Him

We have been discussing the chilling crackdown on free speech that has been building for years in the United States. This effort has accelerated in the aftermath of the Capitol riot including the shutdown sites like Parler.  Now former Texas congressman Ron Paul, 85, has been blocked from using his Facebook page for unspecified violations of “community standards.” Paul’s last posting was linked to an article on the “shocking” increase of censorship on social media. Facebook then proceeded to block him under the same undefined “community standards” policy.

Paul, a libertarian leader and former presidential candidate, has been an outspoken critics of foreign wars and an advocate for civil liberties for decades.  He wrote:

“With no explanation other than ‘repeatedly going against our community standards,’ @Facebook has blocked me from managing my page. Never have we received notice of violating community standards in the past and nowhere is the offending post identified.”

His son is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted, “Facebook now considers advocating for liberty to be sedition. Where will it end?”

Even before the riot, Democrats were calling for blacklists and retaliation against anyone deemed to be “complicit” with the Trump Administration. We have been discussing the rising threats against Trump supporters, lawyers, and officials in recent weeks from Democratic members are calling for blacklists to the Lincoln Project leading a a national effort to harass and abuse any lawyers representing the Republican party or President Trump. Others are calling for banning those “complicit” from college campuses while still others are demanding a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to “hold Trump and his enablers accountable for the crimes they have committed.” Daily Beast editor-at-large Rick Wilson has added his own call for “humiliation,” “incarceration” and even ritualistic suicides for Trump supporters in an unhinged, vulgar column.

After the riots, the big tech companies moved to ban and block sites and individuals, including Parler which is the primary alternative to Twitter.  Also, a top Forbes editor Randall Lane warned any company that they will be investigated if they hire any former Trump officials.

The riots are being used as a license to rollback on free speech and retaliate against conservatives.  In the meantime, the silence of academics and many in the media is deafening. Many of those who have spoken for years about the dark period of McCarthyism and blacklisting are either supporting this censorship or remaining silent in the face of it. Now that conservatives are the targets, speech controls and blacklists appear understandable or even commendable.

The move against Paul, a long champion of free speech, shows how raw and comprehensive this crackdown has become. It shows how the threat to free speech has changed. It is like having a state media without state control. These companies are moving in unison but not necessarily with direct collusion. The riot was immediately taken as a green light to move against a huge variety of sites and individuals.  As we have seen in Europe, such censorship becomes an insatiable appetite for greater and greater speech control.  Even Germany’s Angela Merkel (who has a long history of anti-free speech actions) has criticized Twitter’s actions as inimical to free speech.  Yet, most law professors and media figures in the United States remain silent.

216 thoughts on “Ron Paul Posts Criticism of Censorship on Social Media Shortly Before Facebook Blocks Him”

  1. In the last three months, tech giants have censored political speech and journalism to manipulate U.S. politics, while liberals, with virtual unanimity, have cheered.

    Glenn Greenwald

    With virtual unanimity, leading U.S. liberals celebrated this use of Silicon Valley monopoly power to shut down Parler, just as they overwhelmingly cheered the prior two extraordinary assertions of tech power to control U.S. political discourse: censorship of The New York Post’s reporting on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the banning of the U.S. President from major platforms. Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find a single national liberal-left politician even expressing concerns about any of this, let alone opposing it.

    Not only did leading left-wing politicians not object but some of them were the ones who pleaded with Silicon Valley to use their power this way. After the internet-policing site Sleeping Giants flagged several Parler posts that called for violence, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked: “What are @Apple and @GooglePlay doing about this?” Once Apple responded by removing Parler from its App Store — a move that House Democrats just three months earlier warned was dangerous anti-trust behavior — she praised Apple and then demanded to know: “Good to see this development from @Apple. @GooglePlay what are you going to do about apps being used to organize violence on your platform?”

    The liberal New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg pronounced herself “disturbed by just how awesome [tech giants’] power is” and added that “it’s dangerous to have a handful of callow young tech titans in charge of who has a megaphone and who does not.” She nonetheless praised these “young tech titans” for using their “dangerous” power to ban Trump and destroy Parler. In other words, liberals like Goldberg are concerned only that Silicon Valley censorship powers might one day be used against people like them, but are perfectly happy as long as it is their adversaries being deplatformed and silenced (Facebook and other platforms have for years banned marginalized people like Palestinians at Israel’s behest, but that is of no concern to U.S. liberals).

    That is because the dominant strain of American liberalism is not economic socialism but political authoritarianism.

    1. It takes a lot of intellectual discipline to be a liberal and not slide into deranged radicalism. Most liberals simply indulge in the shallow, coffee-table politics of NPR, with its echo chamber of what’s trending, no matter how idiotic. Most of my liberal friends and relatives are far gone and don’t even realize how much their thinking has shifted to national suicide.

  2. As I have said in earlier posts social media companies should be sued and RICO is the way. Major companies have made their decisions in unison. This is very chilling.

    Do our leftist friends have any objection to this type of action? If they don’t, knowingly or not, they support fascism.

  3. I’m beginning to wonder if the West Coast wants secession to happen. I guess whatever Beijing wants, Beijing gets.

    1. Beijing wants the US to sit down while they take over world leadership and regional trade alliances. Fortunately we got rid of Trump and that s..t is ending.

      1. You think Trump helped Beijing rise to world leadership? I don’t think I have to disprove that. Nobody believes it but deranged trolls.

        1. Diogenes, they have been competing with us for that role for awhile and Trump left the field and abandoned regional trade alliances designed to counter China’s dominance. He’s the best thing they could have hoped for in that regard. His trade wars yielded little for us as the agreement he touted last year has not produced.

          1. Not true and few believe it. Global trade is going to hit a wall anyway because the demographics won’t support it, and that’s only going to increase antagonism toward China.

      2. Reach for your ankles and see if that helps your white ass

        😘

        FBI internal memo warns of plans for armed protests in all 50 state capitals ahead of Biden inauguration

        An internal FBI memo is warning of plans for armed protests in all 50 state capital cities ahead of President-elect Joe Biden’s Inauguration, Fox News has learned.

        A federal law enforcement source told Fox News that an internal bureau memo is warning that the protests could be before, on, and after Inauguration Day.

  4. I have a proposition to everyone posting on this blog. Turley clearly is passionate about free speech rights and he obviously defends it regardless of where it happens. So I challenge anyone posting here to test Turley’s own views on free speech. He’s been condemning Facebook, Twitter, google, Amazon, etc for perpetuating “attacks” on free speech because they censor or ban controversial comments or people.

    Turley believes these companies should let people post what the want no matter how offensive or controversial it is, even if it infers violence.

    A challenge anyone posting to post the most profane, offensive, or just controversial post you can come up with. Be it a rant about leftist, liberals, Biden,etc. or Trump, far right nut jobs, conservatives, Christians, etc. And see just how quick those who dared post get deleted or booted out of the blog. Clearly such posts would ….violate the terms and conditions everyone agree to abide by. But as it is being criticized like Trump, senators, and Turley himself this shouldn’t matter it would be suppressing the free speech of those who dare make the posts. It is after all the main complaint Turley is putting forward when it comes to “silicon valley tech”.

    Who dares make the first post. Who will test Turley’s unflinching adherence to unlimited grrr speech? Turley would be a massive hypocrite if any such post is deleted. Any takers?

    1. Sevy:

      “A challenge anyone posting to post the most profane, offensive, or just controversial post you can come up with. Be it a rant about leftist, liberals, Biden,etc. or Trump, far right nut jobs, conservatives, Christians, etc. And see just how quick those who dared post get deleted or booted out of the blog. Clearly such posts would ….violate the terms and conditions everyone agree to abide by.
      (…)

      Who dares make the first post[?]”
      *******************************************
      A classless clown like you.

      1. Mespo, really? According to Turley. You should be able to post whatever profane ranting your heart desires. Be it railing against liberals, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

        What’s holding you back? Turley wouldn’t dare delete your post. He would be censoring you and violate your free speech rights.

        Come on, be the first. After all you know you want to do it. According to Turley you would be perfectly protected by the first amendment. What do you say mespo?

      2. Mespo, are you game or not?

        Clearly you are hesitant to test Turley’s deeply rooted views on freedom of speech.

        What I find ironic is that I know nobody will do it. Because everyone AGREED to the terms and conditions on this blog. Your freedom of speech is limited on this blog. But Turley complains that other private entities shouldn’t censor their posters. This is why Turley’s arguments on free speech regarding these platforms is pure BS.

    2. When it comes to Trump, Turley says it’s ok to yell fire in a crowded theater, even when there is no fire. He says nothing when protests with permits get greeted with riot gear and told to disperse. Clearly a double standard.

    2. Do you mean the hero who stopped an invader to the Capitol from getting to the House floor and harming Congressmen?

    2. The Left worshipped the Beatles until they saw utility in destruction and Chairman Mao

      But when you talk about destruction
      Don’t you know that you can count me out

  7. Hopefully this overreach will scare the independent thinkers who may not be conservative but value our constitution and bill of rights. But then again, with the poor education system and years of indoctrination in place, there are no independent thinkers left. I see many on JT’s blog here that are fat and happy because they have the prevailing and more powerfully crushing POV.

  10. Facebook may be violating the “public accommodations” section of the Civil Rights Act. That carries an $11,000 fine per violation which may well bankrupt Facebook.

    It’s one thing to censor constitutionally-subversive speech but these are legal First Amendment exercises (non-subversive speech). There is discrimination based on political point of view

    1. Ashcroft, Facebook cannot violate first amendment rights. It is not a government entity.

      Not a single court can rule that Facebook violated anyone’s first amendment right.

      1. If you drove to a locality, while driving Black, and none of the restaurants or hotels would serve you that is a constitutional violation under the Civil Rights Act. There may be a restaurant or hotel in Canada that would serve you but none controlling the market in that locality.

        Facebook’s real problem is that they have no clear rules to censorship. Facebook could state that “incitement to violence” is defined as making a precise threat to a specific place at a specific time or something like that. Facebook seems to hire a bunch of guys and gals that simply make it up as they go along. You can’t follow the rules because nobody understands what the rules are.

        “Offensive Speech” is so subjective it could mean anything. At one time in America, inter-racial marriages were considered obscene, LBGT relationships were considered obscene. In may states opposite sex couples cohabitating was viewed as obscene and a felony crime.

        Facebook and social media are private companies but could easily draw some hard lines in their rulebook so users could be able to comply with the rules. You can follow the rules if there are none.

        1. Ashcroft, you’re providing a false equivalency. You say that using the roads to get to the restaurants and stores and they chose not to serve you is what Facebook is doing.

          Problem is Facebook or any other “store” in your analogy isn’t obligated to serve you just because you used the road to get there. They don’t own the road, but they do own the property that the road leads to. If they required you to agree to certain terms and conditions in order to “shop” there and you willingly agreed to them. You are not protected from your constitutional rights of those terms and conditions included clauses stating so.

          It’s no different than simply saying yes when an officer ask if they can search your car. The second you willingly consent you gave up a right.

    2. Very true Ashcroft. But Democrats don’t care about laws or rules. Those are just for the peons

  11. Where is the political dialog taking place these days. The “private” internet.
    It is pretty powerful to be able to remove RP from Facebook. Real political power.

    1. Old George, it’s not the “Internet” that is removing or censoring. It’s private companies who can do so.

      1. Svalez, correction: it’s MONOPOLIES removing and censoring. Anti-trust RICO violations.

  12. I think that if it has come down to hoping that the courts will preserve rights, then the constitution is in serious jeopardy. This is not an attack on the courts, but a recognition that the political/media/elite class has lost the instinct to protect rights.

    A free society cannot be protected by a constitution…or a court created to referee disputes. It is based upon the the instinctive respect of the populace and their leadership for essential and inalienable rights. Under the US Constitution, the people are the government and the Congress is merely a group of representatives. The media has a role of informing the people so that they can exercise their self-governance role. If both of those institutions have lost the instinct….the reflex…to protect and uphold such rights as free expression for those they oppose, then the courts cannot save anyone.

  13. “ It is like having a state media without state control. These companies are moving in unison but not necessarily with direct collusion. The riot was immediately taken as a green light to move against a huge variety of sites and individuals.”

    But professor Turley this is clearly not state media. These companies are private entities.

    Facebook is perfectly within its rights to ban anyone who violates its policies. The senator himself AGREED to THEIR terms and conditions when he signed up. He essentially gave up his right to be protected by the first amendment willingly.

    Turley himself admits none of these companies have broken the law. It’s his need to have them adhere to the first amendment that is causing his consternation. Here’s a simple way to understand why these companies can do what they are doing and why there’s nothing critics can to. You or anyone doesn’t have a constitutional right to post on Facebook, Twitter, or any other privately run platform. Period.

    Same thing with Senator Hawley’s publisher. He doesn’t have a constitutional right to publish his book. His publisher is not a government entity. They can choose not to publish anything they deem unacceptable to them.

    Even constitutional originalists would have a hard time justifying the claim these companies are violating their first amendment rights.

      1. Breaking up media giants still wouldn’t stop them from censoring or banning people.

        Plus filing an anti-trust suit because of the censoring and banning is actually a violation of THEIR free speech rights.

  14. I agree that the shameful lack of response from our courts, especially our highest court, dismissing with a single sentence a grievous issue, and the practice repeated from the top down, is cause for great alarm. They are afraid. Cowering. When they emerge, it will look like “I AM LEGEND” or worse. Men and women of good will saying nothing. Perhaps you’ve seen the video of what Kamala Harris did to an investigative journalist doing undercover work at Planned Parenthood. Full SWAT.
    That irritating phrase, “Stay safe”, takes on new meaning. I have a different reply these days, and it has little to do with my newest mask design. Other things to stockpile at the moment. My thoughts, words and actions, for starters.

    1. Sometimes, it’s hard to believe that Kamala Harris actually attended law school, let alone was elected to the office of attorney general in California. Perhaps her blinding ambition blinds her to lessons that she must have learned in first year Constitutional Law. God help us if she ever becomes president.

  15. The tree of liberty has not been well taken care of in the past few years… And it must be fed and watered. I’ve saner heads don’t take control, your country will go down a path that will make the first Civil War look pleasant.

      1. And what Washington said:

        “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

        1. 3 drama queen snowflakes working each other up over a private business enforcing it’s user agreement.

          1. Says the “drama queen snowflake” who’s been peeing in his pants for the last 4 years because he didn’t get his Hillary participation trophy.

            You are only making it worse.

  16. We would probably have a greater sense of alarm if more had spoken out sooner. Some did. Like that frog on slow simmer until he discovered he was cooked. To paraphrase our famous post Holocaust lament**: First they censored the conservatives. But I wasn’t a conservative, so I didn’t speak up. Then they came for the protesters who sought election accountability. But I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t in charge of elections. By the time I realized that my every thought, word, and action was under strict control by the tech oligarchs, there was no one left to speak for anyone, and no further need of elections. Or thought. Or speech. No one left at all to speak for me.
    **-Martin Neimoller, a Lutheran concentration camp survivor in Nazi Germany, died in the year highlight by the famous Orwell book, 1984. We are ALL Winston.
    By the way, I assume the Oligarchs have vast security and generators for when the lights go out, right? Out of curiosity, do those generators run on wind power? Solar? Not gasoline, certainly! Going full sci-fi this morning. Science fiction becomes science fact.

    Thank you Jonathan Turley for not remaining silent.

  17. Republicans have long fought to make sure that Corporations can do anything they want. They oppose regulations every single time. They support the right of corprations to allow or not allow certain actions or opinions to occur or be published on their sites or in their premises. Now they want to regulate them because they don’t agree with what they have done…repudiate the radical anti democratic conduct of the radical reactionary right wing who view violence and sedition as as tools to impose their will regardless of the view of the people. Typical hypocrisy.

    The First Amendment is a limitation on government action. That’s the law. I guess, Professor, you are aware of this.

    1. justice Holmes wrote, “Republicans have long fought to make sure that Corporations can do anything they want. They oppose regulations every single time. They support the right of corporations to allow or not allow certain actions or opinions to occur or be published on their sites or in their premises. Now they want to regulate them because they don’t agree with what they have done…repudiate the radical anti democratic conduct of the radical reactionary right wing who view violence and sedition as as tools to impose their will regardless of the view of the people. Typical hypocrisy.”

      Correlation ≠ Causation

      Yes there is some hypocrisy about such things but what you wrote is a common misrepresentation of what Republicans have argued.

      Try again.

    2. Professor Turley’s article is not about the First Amendment, it is about free speech, something that exists apart from the law. Sorta like religious liberty. I guess, justice Holmes, you are aware of this.

    3. “Corporations are people too” ……….Turley is now in the mind that privately-owned companies do not have the right to suppress hate, lies, and sedition on their own platforms. And using Ron Paul a known racist as a example of free speech is a travesty.

    4. Republicans have also been at the forefront of breaking up monopolies. That’s where we are again.

  18. First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.
    Martin Niemöller

    Yes, it has begun.

    1. Great minds alike. I was just writing something similar as paraphrase this morning. Thank you. I’m not alone.

  19. The pendulum always swings back – sometimes with more force.

    When the lefties sit in the tumbrils, they should ask themselves what happened to civil rights.

    1. The courts have covered themselves with dishonor in this mess so don’t expect much from the courts. Even if they do rule in favor of free speech, don’t expect these people to pay much attention to them. Election laws, big and small, were ignored and nobody cared. The Democrats are fond of accusing others of being fascists but they finally let the real thing take control. There are legal arguments against what big tech is doing, but the oligarchs don’t seem worried about them. Spineless Republicans and power-mad Democrats seem to have let the bad guys take over the country, at least for now.

    2. jcdalis asked, “Professor is all lost? Can our courts do anything to reverse these actions?”

      It has to actually get in the courts for the courts to do anything and the transparent goal of the Democrats, progressives, social justice warriors and anarchists is that nothing ever gets to court so the court of public opinion can rule the roost. Vigilantism is rapidly on the rise in our 21st century “cancel” culture.

      Here is the process that actively under way:

      1. Suppress the dissidents.
      2. Relegating the dissidents to second-class citizenry.
      3. Shun the dissidents from all social places.
      4. Liquidate the dissidents as enemies of the state.

      This is exactly what happened in 1930’s Germany.

      Numbers 1, 2 and 3 are currently very popular tactics in the United States that are freely being used by a growing segment of our culture. I suspect that these particular tactics will grow rapidly in popularity over the next few years which will continue to spiral our culture deeper into division and towards totalitarianism.

      Number four on your list is damn near inevitable if the people implementing tactics 1, 2 and 3 are left unchecked by our culture and enabled by divisional politics, bigotry and hate.

      1. Step Four on your list is going to be a darn sight harder to do than when done by the Nazi’s in Germany and the Communists in Russia as there are more than a few Guns in the hands of the People in this Country.

        If the Left thinks they can crack on with Step Four without resistance by the targets of their hate…..they are going to run up on the rocks of reality.

        Just as was seen at the Capitol Building….there are those the Left think they can rely upon to carry out their crimes that will not.

        When one understands a successful insurgency only needs about 3% of the population to win…..and we have an almost equally divided population currently…..I will bet on the Left losing should they push too hard too soon.

        The wise course for them is to use their traditional method of nibbling away at our Rights and Freedoms whenever they are in power rather than trying to get across the goal line in one play.

        But then whenever was the radical Leftists among us ever known for their wisdom?

      2. We agree Steve. The vigilantes who stormed the capital last week were intent on suppressing the legal votes of those dissenting from Herr Trump.

Comments are closed.