Recently, Sen. Bernie Sanders raised concerns over the banning of Donald Trump from Twitter as an attack on free speech by corporate censors. It apparently had no impact on Big Tech. Facebook has removed a video of an interview by Lara Trump of her father-in-law and former president. The company declared that it would censor any content “in the voice of Donald Trump.” It appears that Trump has achieved Voldemort status on social media and is now “he who must not be heard.”
Notably, he could be talking about the Yankees but the posting would be censored because the team was discussed in the voice of Donald Trump. It is not his view but Trump himself that is being canceled by the company. However, presumably, Lara Trump could sit next to Trump and have him whisper his views into her ear. She could then give his views in the voice of Lara rather than Donald Trump.
As we have previously discussed, Democrats have abandoned long-held free speech values in favor of corporate censorship. They clearly has a different “comfort zone” than Sanders. What discomforts many Democratic members is the ability of people to speak freely on these platforms and spread what they view as “disinformation.”
When Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey came before the Senate to apologize for blocking the Hunter Biden story before the election as a mistake, senators pressed him and other Big Tech executive for more censorship.
In that hearing, members like Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., HI) pressed witnesses like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey for assurance that Trump would remain barred from speaking on their platforms: “What are both of you prepared to do regarding Donald Trump’s use of your platforms after he stops being president, will be still be deemed newsworthy and will he still be able to use your platforms to spread misinformation?”
Rather than addressing the dangers of such censoring of news accounts, Senator Chris Coons pressed Dorsey to expand the categories of censored material to prevent people from sharing any views that he considers “climate denialism.” Likewise, Senator Richard Blumenthal seemed to take the opposite meaning from Twitter, admitting that it was wrong to censor the Biden story. Blumenthal said that he was “concerned that both of your companies are, in fact, backsliding or retrenching, that you are failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” Accordingly, he demanded an answer to this question:
“Will you commit to the same kind of robust content modification playbook in this coming election, including fact checking, labeling, reducing the spread of misinformation, and other steps, even for politicians in the runoff elections ahead?”
“Robust content modification” has a certain appeal, like a type of software upgrade. It is not content modification. It is censorship. If our representatives are going to crackdown on free speech, they should admit to being advocates for censorship.
Now “robust content modification” includes censoring the voice of Donald Trump. It is not just censorship but senseless. These companies are trying to erase a unpopular figures but in doing so they are only deepening the divisions and anger in our country. Yet, the media is largely either supportive or silent in the face of this corporate regulation of political speech.
The move by Facebook could strengthen calls for changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Big Tech once fashioned itself as the equivalent of the telephone company, and thus sought protections as neutral suppliers of communication forums allowing people to voluntarily associate and interact. It then started to engage in expanding, conflicting acts of censorship. Yet, it still wants to remain protected as if it were neutral despite actively modifying content. We would never tolerate a telephone company operator cutting into a call to say the company did not approve of a statement that was just made, or cutting the line for those who did not voice approved positions.
That is why I call myself an “internet originalist.” True neutrality leaves it to individuals to choose who they read, watch or converse with in the media. You leave it up to people to decide whose voices will be heard.
Again today the subject is freedom of speech, and the general assault on the Bill of Rights that underlie our freedoms. The Bill of Rights (Constitutional Amendments) was a hard fought realization drafted by George Mason. Mason objected at the Constitutional Convention that there was no Declaration of Rights within the proposed Constitution or protection for the individual states. He felt the federal government would be to powerful. Mason came to the conclusion that there should be a binding provision guaranteeing individual rights superior to government(s), state and federal. He stated on numerous occasions “there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people”. Mason is credited with writing in his draft of the Bill of Rights “That all men by nature are equally and independent, and have certain inherent rights, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety”.
CERTAIN OF THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED WITHIN THE AMENDMENTS OF OUR CONSITITUTION ARE UNDER ASSUALT BY THE LEFT. WE MUST OBJECT TO ANY ASSUALT(S) AND BE CONSTANTLY VIGALANT TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS AND NOT ALLOW A SMALL MINORITY TO USURP THOSE RIGHTS.
George Mason can sum up any objections to guaranteeing our rights better than I can. Mason said; “In all our associations; in all our agreements let us never lose sight of this fundamental maxim-that all power was originally lodged in, and consequently is derived from, the people. We should wear it as a breastplate, and buckle it on as our armour”; and in part from 1776 he said “…these Rights have not been forfeited by any Act of ours, we cannot be deprived of them without our Consent, but by Violence and Injustice; We have received them from our Ancestors and, with God’s Leave, we will transmit them, unimpaired to our Posterity”.
God Bless the Greatest Country on Earth, The United States of America.
The Democrats tell social media that they should block conservatives so like little rats they scurry to do the bidding of the Dcats lest they are soon to be eaten. They won’t block any disinformation from CNN, NYT, or The WP except for their numerous retractions. You can see the fear in their eyes because they won’t know what to do when the Republicans regain control. There once were uncharted island on which they could hide but those days are over.
There are posters here who say that Professor Turley blocks content but day after day they post the same content that they have always posted. President Trump has been blocked from posting any comment at all on social media. When the posts of AnonJoeFriday, Natacha, And Svelaz are blocked entirely from this blog I’ll cry them a river. I have seen calls for violence against others that have not been blocked in this forum. How far must they have gone to be blocked? Never mind, whatever it was I wouldn’t be surprised. They say that Facebook and Twitter have a right to block whoever they want but if they are blocked by Turley they squeal like little piggies. Now they are all of a sudden concerned with free speech. Excuse me if the crocodile won’t give me a boo hoo or even one teardrop in concern for baby AnonJoeFriday, Natacha, or toddler Svelaz. I think that it was Lincoln that said “there’s nothing wrong with being a fool. The problem is with opening your mouth to let everyone else know that your a fool”.
One of the people who was blocked is Art Deco (used to post as This is Absurd).
If I get blocked, I won’t ask anyone to cry for me. It’s JT’s site and he can do what he wants with it.
Anon at 2:47. I did not mention you in my previous post concerning AnonJoeFriday, Natacha or Svelaz. Please let us know your opinion about their squealing when being blocked by Turley. It will be interesting to hear your criticism of your fellow travelers. The silence will be deafening.
I haven’t heard any “squealing.”
Anon at 2:47, you say that you don’t want anyone to cry for you if you get blocked but you cry for Art Deco being blocked in the same post. You’ll just have someone else cry for you and you can cry for them and then you can say you don’t want anybody to cry for you. Brilliant, the invention of the Proxy Crier. Crocodile number one cries for Crocodile number two and Crocodile number two cries for Crocodile number two. Too many Crocodile teardrops. Got to hand it to ya.
Thinkitthrough, you sure sound bitter at the idea that a private company can ban users who violate their terms and conditions that they agreed to.
I could care less if Turley’s blog blocked me or banned me if I violated HIS policies. It’s his right. But he would also prove to everyone else how massive a hypocrite he is.
Turley blocking anonymous JF, me, or any other “leftist” here won’t change anything. If section 230 were repealed any one of us could sue Turley for censoring free speech of left leaning posters and attacking our free speech. Ooops. I guess he would prefer the status quo instead.
Svelaz at 3:06. Here’s the difference. Turley may block something you post but you can come back the next day and continue to comment. Trump is not allowed to come back the next day and continue to post. Turley suffers you the right to continue to post but you condone the complete blockage of all opinions by Trump. You are indeed a man of discerned knowledge and equal application of free speech. Sorry, I should have said of your free speech.
Thinkit, Turley has his rules, Facebook has theirs. If their rules are you get banned for life you get banned for life. If Turley just bans you for a day he still is censoring your speech for a day.
The SOTUS has ruled numerous times that the federal government violates the 1st Amendment’s free speech guarantee when they try to force private companies to censor online content that the Feds don’t like. Which is exactly why FB is censoring Trump.
So the SOTUS is where all this is headed.
Regardless, Trump will be heard. As to there are far too many media outlets to keep him from being heard, and as the MSM news outlets are now finding out the hard way, Trump draws views.
Viewership impressions is ALL that the advertisers care about.
Walworths, “ The SOTUS has ruled numerous times that the federal government violates the 1st Amendment’s free speech guarantee when they try to force private companies to censor online content that the Feds don’t like. Which is exactly why FB is censoring Trump.”
Nope. The government isn’t forcing private companies to censor online content. They can’t. The government can’t force private companies to carry people’s content either, because it would literally violate these private companies free speech rights.
SCOTUS can’t force any private company to carry anybody’s speech. There is no law or constitutional requirement to do so.
Trump is creating his own platform. He will be free to speak to his deranged content as much as he wants. I guarantee his own platform will be censoring “leftists” and liberals at will. He can do that. Because it will be HIS platform. Will Turley go after Trump for attack free speech too?
Of course, Big Tech will get its Ozymandian day of reckoning like Big Sport is getting now with its viewership off the cliff. But still, I feel like the remnants of the French nobility waiting for Robespierre to get the blade: You’re glad to be in the crowd knowing it’s going to be happening but you gave up a lot for the prize.
mespo:
“Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.” Funny you mention Ozymandias because my son just memorized that poem.
My father would talk about how the elites would go along with various tyrannical government takeovers, because they thought they would be part of the ruling class. They were often wrong.
I have long wondered at the willful blindness among Democrats. I don’t understand. Conservatives knew Trump’s faults. We would discuss it. Sometimes we agreed with Trump, other times we disagreed. We voted for his policies, not his personal flaws. But we weren’t blind to them. Sometimes I’d have reservations about one of his policies, only to be proven wrong.
But the Democrats that I’ve spoken with won’t admit there are any problems in the Democrat Party. It sends chills up my spine, sometimes. Someone will say how conservatives are the party of sedition because that one group illegally stormed the capitol. I’ll point out that Republicans condemned those people and called for them to face the law. But when I ask them about the months of looting, burning, rioting, while Democrats not only praised them, but bailed them out of jail, they don’t want to talk about it. “Let’s change the subject,” they’ll say.
They claim to be the party that’s anti-racist. But when I ask about the normalization of Democrats hurling racist slurs like “Uncle Tom” against black conservatives, and otherwise using intimidation against blacks who don’t voice Leftist opinions, it’s “let’s change the subject.”
They say they are against Fascism. But when I point out the aspects of Fascism behind the censorship, harassment of conservatives especially on college campuses, cancel culture, and the violence against conservative dissidents, it’s “let’s change the subject.”
They can’t possibly have anything to say. They don’t want to know. What kind of people don’t want to know if they are voting for totalitarianism. I don’t get it. I have changed my voting habits over the years because I research the outcome of propositions and politicians I voted for. I evolved with that knowledge. Aren’t we supposed to make informed decisions?
Conservatives, Republicans, and Libertarians had no end of access to criticism against President Trump. It was easy to find out what was true, and what was total fabrication. But I’d hear Democrats parrot actuations that a 5 minute search should have dispelled. No journalist should have repeated the lie that Trump called white supremacists “very fine people.” The video of that speech is readily available, in which he said, “and I”m not talking about the white supremacists and the Neo Nazis, who should be condemned totally.” That should have ended it. But I have forwarded that video to Democrats I knew. I’ve even copied and pasted the text to them. But they ignore it and keep repeating the lie.
It’s willful blindness. That just seems so irresponsible.
Democrats accuse Republicans of what they, themselves, have done.