We have have been discussing how writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. The erosion of free speech has been radically accelerated by the Big Tech and social media companies, including YouTube. Now YouTube has censored actual testimony given to the United States Senate by Dr. Pierre Kory, who was testifying on different drug treatment. So now these companies are going to censor what was told to the government and decide what viewers will be allowed to consider from the public debate. It is a continuation of the movement to prevent people from hearing opposing views and to control what is shared or discussed in a growing attack on free speech.
YouTube removed two videos from a December 8th hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. It featured Kory who discussed the use of Ivermectin as a potential treatment for Covid-19, particularly in the early stages. It is a drug that treats tropical diseases caused by parasites. Kory was calling for a review by National Institutes of Health on trials for the drug. Ultimately, it does appear that the NIH did change the status of the drug.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) has said that the videos were blocked on his account, including Kory’s testimony. The Federalist maintained that YouTube removed the videos to the platform’s COVID-19 Medical Misinformation Policy. That policy stipulates that anything which goes against “local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19” will be removed.
I can hardly shed light on the merits of the medical debate but this is the censoring of an actual Senate hearing that is so disturbing. YouTube is preventing citizens from watching testimony on an issue of national importance. It is an example of the slippery slope of censorship and how such speech regulation becomes an insatiable appetite for many.
The Civil Rights Act has a private business clause for “public accommodations”. As I understand it, if a private business open to the general public (or groups of business), in a particular market, discriminates or denies it’s customers equal service as other customers, that business owner can be fined $11,000 per violation. Federal “color of law” statutes have “private” clauses that also apply to non-government persons. There is legal precedent, when private companies create an environment that violates constitutional rights.
Since government officials are driving the censorship (companies regulated and licensed by the very same government), is Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, etc. essentially being deputized by the federal government? This is not a hypothetical scenario, previous administrations have withheld or delayed licensing from press and media companies, trying to coerce them to violate legal First Amendment activity.
Maybe we need to add “political speech” or “speech not embraced by the government” to the Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act primarily protects minority groups. The reason they are discriminated against is because they are minority voting block and require “allies” that exercise “political speech”. So the minority group is protected but not their allies exercising legal political speech.
In the very near future, Trump’s supporters will be the minority group needing protection from the Civil Rights Act and constitutional protections. The Civil Rights Act should protect legal First Amendment activity also, in addition to the Fourteenth Amendment rights of the original CRA.
Well written.
Perhaps if Google or Facebook were recognized as Public Utilities, how they govern themselves would be different?
But to your point, show me the connection where they are being told by the current administration on what to censor…
That would be a very dangerous proposition if you can show it.
(And I don’t believe that was the intent of your post.)
“show me the connection where they are being told by the current administration on what to censor…
That would be a very dangerous proposition if you can show it.”
If they are, we won’t know it for a good 50 years…
You won’t see it. This predates this administration. You can hear what Jeff Zucker said at his staff meetings during the election from Project Veritas. Sometimes, an object is clearer in the reflection. Astronomers determine celestial objects like Black Holes by their effects on objects around it. We can see by the words chosen, the timing of reports and dare I use the term, common sense.
What is important to me is that they’re doing it, not who is telling them to. And we know they’re doing it.
Why is Turley so confused? YouTube has no constitutional or legal obligation to carry any video at all. This is not censorship. It’s a business decision. C-Span has the video on record.
There are too many constitutional illiterates thinking the first amendment gives you the right to say anything and the platform you use to say if in os required to carry it. Wrong.
No platform is constitutionally required to carry anyone’s messages or points of view. Nor they can be forced to. Turley knows this, but it seems he’s just too busy being outraged to notice.
This “cancel culture” is nothing more than businesses enforcing the rules EVERYONE who signed off on when they signed up. If you don’t like it….STOP CLICKING ON THE “I AGREE” BUTTON! Every time you do that you literally give them control of YOUR free speech. Willfully! SMH.
@svelaz
Didn’t know you cared so much about “private companies”. I will take you seriously when you support my right not to bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding” or not forced into allowing biological males to use the women’s restroom in my “private business”.
Let’s be honest, you only care about “private companies”, when they are sufficiently woke and support a leftist agenda.
THEY CENSOR ONLY THOSE THEY FEAR! No one is censoring the Flat Earth Society or Constitution Party. Their materials can be easily found on You Tube or Twitter.
antonio
Antonio, a baker doesn’t require you to sign a document stating that you AGREE to their terms and conditions.
Walking into a bakery with expectations that anyone who walks in of being able to buy a cake for a wedding shouldn’t come with an exception that only a certain kind of people won’t be served.
If a baker had religious objections. A big sign on the window stating clearly they won’t cater to homosexuals because if their deeply held religious beliefs would solve their problem.
Nobody signs an agreement to use the bathroom.
But you do sign an agreement to use Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. big difference there fella.
“Walking into a bakery with expectations . . .”
The *principled* position is: “We reserve the right . . .” That right applies to *all* businesses — not just to those you happen to favor at the moment.
“. . . shouldn’t come with an exception that only a certain kind of people won’t be served.”
Why not? It’s *his* business. He has the moral right to contract or not contract with whomever he pleases, by whatever standards he chooses. What gives you the right to compel him to conduct business and associate with those he does not like?
What gives you the right to use that baker, by force, as a means to your ends?
@Svelaz +10
“…No platform is constitutionally required to carry anyone’s messages or points of view…”
So philosophically you agree that as long as the government does not censor, you are in favor of personal and business censorship.
Private industry owns all public telephone service. By your twisted, pathetic, sick philosophy, people who use the phone might use a word or structure sentences in a way the private telephone industry wants to censor, then you agree with that, and you blame all telephone users.
You’re some combination of not too bright and/or totalitarian. .
Meanwhile Smartmatic has filed a $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox, Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro, Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell –
https://www.smartmatic.com/uploads/Smartmatic_Complaint_Against_Fox_Corporation.pdf
I look forward to discovery.
It’s available on non-profit C-Span –
https://www.c-span.org/video/?507035-1/medical-response-covid-19
Not sure why you’re focused on for-profit Youtube.
Fundamentally, free speech means you have the right to say pretty much whatever you want and yes, it is the government that is constitutionally prohibited from inhibiting it. However, it’s a very slippery slope when you have social media and the news industry censoring what began as a public forum. Should they? No. Can they? Yes. Is it the right thing to do? Absolutely not! It certainly can be viewed as reasonably as long as the censored comments are different from your perspective. However, if some basement dwelling nerd for Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc, decides “He” disagrees with your perspective, it takes on a whole new meaning. I for one believe the social media is making a grave mistake by its actions and it will only be a matter of time that other entrepreneurs will build a better, bigger and more open system and I’m looking forward to the day that happens. Even if that does not happen, there will come a time politically, when the bribing of congressional members will be rejected and regulations will be produced & enforced. The liability protection all of the current social media enjoys will come to end, sooner than later. There is something to the old adage that while “I may not agree with your speech, I will protect your right to say it,” but those fundamental lessons that promote liberty, freedom, speech, assembly, protest, religion are fading fast and once gone, it will nearly impossible to retrieve them in except through a violent revolution.
Youtube has never been an unregulated public forum.
Section 230 should be amended to provide that its benefits are only available to platforms whose “moderation” policies are limited to the kind of speech that is not protected by the 1st Amendment. This would still permit actual incitements to the commission of crimes to be eliminated, but opinion could not be. Whether a statement was false, or “disinformation”, could also not be a basis to eliminate it, since false speech per se is generally not excluded from 1st Amendment protection. And it would clearly not be permissible to censor speech merely on the basis that it contradicted the views of a local health authority or the WHO, even if those views were thought to be correct.
Someone call the police.
Congress and the Senate are committing a crime.
It is illegal for Congress to impeach and the Senate to try/convict a private citizen and former president.
It is only legal for Congress to impeach and the Senate to try/convict “THE” president, per the Constitution, which is the fundamental law.
Arrest every Congressman who criminally votes on illegal impeachment and arrest every Senator who votes in a criminal trial and on criminal conviction for perpetration of and complicity in a crime.
Arrest the derelict judicial branch/Supreme Court which must have struck down this illegal impeachment and trial/conviction upon the refusal of the Chief Justice to execute his solemn constitutional duty and
preside over this illegal act.
After the theft of the 2020 presidential election and this looming illegal impeachment, America is no longer a nation of laws.
America now resembles Myanmar with its stolen election.
You believe it’s illegal. That you believe it doesn’t determine whether it’s true or false. Only a court can determine it to be illegal. Find someone who has standing to challenge it in court.
Absent that, your opinion has no weight.
You don’t have to be a medical expert to understand what it means to have lifesaving therapeutics with held from the public when they are in the first stages of COVID in favor of the “let them get to death’s door and hospitalize them with a greatly lowered chance of survival”.
It is also worth noting that similar research was earlier called to attention in a article published in the American Journal of Medicine last August.
The implications are so egregious that even Newsweek got on board with some of what I call “Strawman Fact Checking” where the fakers pick a version of the story that has a rough edge like “AJM Endorsed Therapeutics for Covid” and they find it FALSE because AMJ is the publisher, not the author, and AMJ doesn’t “endorse” what is contained in the articles. “This article does not mean the journal recommended this therapy,” he said. “The authors recommended it just as others recommend other interventions. We just publish their findings and recommendations.” DUH..are we supposed to believe that NEWSPEAK doesn’t understand that facet of publishing? But why accuse them of intellectual dishonesty? when they know they are and don’t care?
However the fact that AMJ published the article speaks for itself in that there is no reason to dismiss the information that the doctors who wrote the article or the conclusion that the deliberate with holding of therapeutics from early onset COVID patients have cost lives.
Forgive me that I can’t provide the names of the doctors who wrote the article, because to find any mention of it at all, one must google “NEWSWEEK Fact Check: Did the American Journal of Medicine Recommend Hydroxychloroquine For COVID?” or some variation, and wade through the predictable pages of articles disparaging and mocking the AJM article, but not find the article itself. Even the NEWSPEAK article provides no link and carefully doesn’t mention the author/doctor’s names. In Newspeak deep dive, they even quoted a tweet that provided no clues to who wrote the article. They are very, very careful to make sure that the public can’t get any “false information” on their own, like a link to an article in that fringe, radical publication, the American Journal of Medicine.
If Americans will tolerate this, they will end up without any freedoms at all.
One area where even the US Government has been given broad censorship powers, and it wields them diligently, is in medical treatment claims (FDA Law of 1938).
The way you “speak” to the public about drugs and devices is highly structured to deter “gung ho” opinion not backed up by clinically-sound study data. We Americans have benefitted enormously from this regulatory framework, and it’s the reason why we lead the world in cutting-edge medicine THAT WORKS.
JT, perhaps in your zeal to widen the pipeline of free speech you’d allow circumventions of the FDA Law. That’s short-sighted and not fully apprised of the commercial pressures pushing drug-developers to oversell their products, and to “deceive with good intentions”.
So did the American Journal of Medicine also publish studies on the value of therapeutics in saving lives for early onset COIVD that are deceptive? Because it’s so unimaginable that developed drugs, (aka “cheap”) that have a history of being effective on a wide array of viruses that are similar and related to COVD have the same affect on COVID 19? It’s actually more probable that would be the truth rather than the other way around. But who am I to process information logically? I need to bow and scrape to the Priesthood and insert their illogic for my own thinking, isn’t that it? Isn’t that why we need Big Brother in the first place?
So did the American Journal of Medicine also publish studies on the value of therapeutics in saving lives for early onset COIVD that are deceptive? Because it’s so unimaginable that developed drugs, (aka “cheap”) that have a history of being effective on a wide array of viruses that are similar and related to COVD have the same affect on COVID 19?
1. Yes but likely not about COVID but other medical illnesses. It’s the nature of medical publishing
2. What other viruses are similar? The COVID-19 virus mechanism of action is unique, and it is evolving quickly unlike any other recent pathogenic virus.
When you hear hooves, think horse, not zebra.
This whole debate has nothing to do with Hydroxyquinone and COVID-19 treatment.
Hint: Here is a wonderful article, gratis, published by them, written by a Cardiologist, on this very topic.
Trust in the Time of COVID-19
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30680-X/fulltext
One area where even the US Government has been given broad censorship powers, and it wields them diligently, is in medical treatment claims (FDA Law of 1938).
Since the physicians in question are not marketing pharmaceuticals nor are they offering medical care to discrete persons, you’re peddling a red herring.
What is source of any obligation that the distributer of free news must deliver “all the news?” Extensive/popular use of a ‘free’ service does not endow the user(s) with a guarantee or right to continued use. This is a critical part of the decision about some companies’ ( monopolies ?) suspension of free services. Examples in the current discussion include; Facebook, Google, Twitter, U-tube. etc.. People allege monopoly while C-Span provides access to events such as congressional testimony free of commercial interventions and editing/interpretation/’explanations’.. Wasn’t the availability of an alternative ( i. e. waxed paper) the argument that protected Alco against charges that Aluminum Foil had a monopoly?
Agreed on needing to be very careful about restricting free speech, Jon….
But I’m mystified as to how you don’t cite the effects of a president and his party that regularly lied and bargained in bad faith. There is a definite cause and effect relationship there. Probably best to have something along the lines of a 9/11 type of commission to detail out the input factors that are receiving such blowback.
And gottdamn, i’ll actually take the afternoon off to watch the garbage fire of trump’s testimony in his second impeachment trial. Bet you’re glad you said no when they approached you about representation. While there is no shortage of typos in your blog posts, I’m going to just put out there you wouldn’t have misspelled “United States” in the second line of the defense brief.
Good times.
Elvis Bug
No need to disparage the Obama administration. We all know the bogus Mueller investigation was initiated in good faith. I don’t think the Tech monopolies control C-span yet.
I disagree about CSPAN as I wade through their prolific bevy of “made for TV” press conferences heavily featuring: ta da Democrats peddling the New State Narrative.
Yes, we all know Bout how the Democrats’lies led to this censorship trend.
Funny how they had no problem running all the stuff and now they want to be heroes after the mob stormed the Capital as much as I despise all the Trump stands for..1st amendment allows for free speech……Justice Holmes had it right. but censorship only in cases of inflaming/”fire in a crowed movie to para phrase…
Who is “they” in “they had no problem running all the stuff and now they want to be heroes” that you’re talking about?
Allowing people to think for themselves is a too dangerous concept. If only our betters, aside from their authoritarian bent, were not so dumb in what they have to offer.
Their mantra appears to be All the news that we deem fit
Well, nobody cared when they cut Trump posting. Now nobody cares when they cut a Senate hearing over medicine. I wonder where it will stop or if will stop.
I’ll wager it’s some witless youth, but acting under standing orders.
That aside, you can see the mentality at work every time Paint Chips rails against the President for mentioning HQL. Instead of a dispute given incomplete information and quick-and-dirty studies with incompatible parameters, it’s turned into an exercise in status jonesing.
The last several administrations have been extraordinarily negligent in re anti-trust law.
Remember good citizens, the censorship is for your own good! You are just too stupid to make your own decisions, so you need the help of your leftist intellectual bettors.
The next time some obnoxious s@@tlib tells me it’s not really “censorship” since it is being done by a private company. What about the following below:
What about the “private company” who objects to making a wedding cake for a gay “wedding”?
What about the “private company” that objects to letting biological males use restrooms meant for females?
Or what about allowing allowing the government to take your land for the benefits of a “private company” (i.e. Kelo v. City of New London)?
Didn’t know leftists cared so much about “private companies”.
antonio
What about the “private company” who objects to making a wedding cake for a gay “wedding”?
What about the “private company” that objects to letting biological males use restrooms meant for females?
Or what about allowing allowing the government to take your land for the benefits of a “private company” (i.e. Kelo v. City of New London)?
1. The bakers are idiots because homerseuxals have more discretionary funds to spend on frivolous things like ornate cakes. The bakers should be milking the LGBTQIA-eieio for all the money that have by throwing in lots of glitter and sparklers, and upping the price.
2. Teach your sons to piss in public behind a tree and see if the Trans can piss further with longer streams. You’ll win Trannies over back to the male side.
3. Be successful financially, buy the private company and then build a Catholic Church on the property. In this way you will convert the conservatives and liberals who turned their backs on God to create golden calves out of political ideologies.
Antonio, coño, viejo, ¡no jodas mas! You’re acting like a Puerto Rican!
🇨🇺🇺🇸🇻🇦
We know what these people are aiming for.
A more realistic time would have called these people traitors for the damage that they are inflicting on our country.
monumentcolorado yes, they are past the point where they should be tolerated. Kory is only a more visible messenger that these fake scientists have deliberately with held live saving therapeutics from early stage COVID patients. They have let people die, needlessly.
Can you name some of the “fake scientists” you’re referring to?
Da Nang Dick Blumenthal needs that censorship so his lying about being a Vietnam Combat Veteran (can you say the words “Stolen Valor”) are not kept in circulation everytime he opens his mouth.
Once a Liar….always a Liar.
What do you expect? They’re Bidenites.
We all know YouTube sucks. It’s why lots of us have moved on.