With the restoration of free speech protections on Twitter, panic has grown on the left that its control over social media could come to an end. Now, some of the greatest advocates of censorship in Congress are specifically warning Facebook not to follow Twitter in restoring free speech to its platform.
In a chilling letter from Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), André Carson (D-Ind.), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Facebook was given a not-so-subtle threat that reducing its infamous censorship system will invite congressional action. The letter to Meta’s president of global affairs, Nick Clegg, is written on congressional stationery “as part of our ongoing oversight efforts.”
With House Republicans pledging to investigate social media censorship when they take control in January, these four Democratic members are trying to force Facebook to “recommit” to censoring opposing views and to make election censorship policies permanent. Otherwise, they suggest, they may be forced to exercise oversight into any move by Facebook to “alter or rollback certain misinformation policies.”
In addition to demanding that Facebook preserve its bans on figures like former president Donald Trump, they want Facebook to expand its censorship overall because “unlike other major social media platforms, Meta’s policies do not prohibit posts that make unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud.”
Clegg is given Schiff’s telephone number to discuss Facebook’s compliance — an ironic contact point for a letter on censoring “disinformation.” After all, Schiff was one of the members of Congress who, before the 2020 presidential election, pushed the false claim that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, and he has been criticized for pushing false narratives on Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election. (Schiff has previously pressured social media companies to expand the censorship of opposing views).
The letter to Clegg is reminiscent of another letter sent by several congressional Democrats to cable-TV carriers last year, demanding to know why they continue to carry Fox News. (For full disclosure, I appear as a legal analyst on Fox News.) As I later discussed in congressional testimony, it was an open effort by those Democrats to censor opposing views by proxy or by surrogate.
This is not the first time that some members of Congress have not-so-subtly warned social media companies to expand the censorship of political and scientific views which they consider to be wrong.
In a November 2020 Senate hearing, then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story. But Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., warned that he and his Senate colleagues would not tolerate any “backsliding or retrenching” by “failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.”
Others, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have called on social media companies to use enlightened algorithms to “protect” people from their own “bad” choices. After all, as President Joe Biden asked, without censorship and wise editors, “How do people know the truth?”
Now, Democrats fear Facebook and other social media companies might “backslide” into free speech as Facebook, among others, is faced with declining revenues and ordering layoffs. Tellingly, these congressional Democrats specifically want assurances that those layoffs will not reduce the staff dedicated to censoring social media.
It is not hard to see the cause for alarm. This hold-the-line warning is meant to stop a cascading failure in the once insurmountable wall of social-media censorship. If Facebook were to restore free-speech protections, the control over social media could evaporate.
Despite an effort by the left to boycott Twitter and cut off advertising revenues, users are signing up in record numbers, according to Twitter owner Elon Musk, and a recent poll shows a majority of Americans “support Elon Musk’s ongoing efforts to change Twitter to a more free and transparent platform.”
The pressure on Facebook is ironic, given the company’s previous effort to get the public to accept — even welcome — censorship. The company ran a creepy ad campaign about how young people should accept censorship (or “content modification,” in today’s Orwellian parlance) as part of their evolution with technology. It did not work; most people are not eager to buy into censorship. Instead, many of them apparently are buying into Twitter.
The public response has led censorship advocates to look abroad for allies. Figures like Hillary Clinton have called upon European countries to force the censorship of American citizens.
Censorship comes at a cost not only to free speech but, clearly, to these companies. Nevertheless, some members of Congress are demanding that Facebook and other companies offer the “last full measure of devotion” to the cause of censorship. Despite the clear preference of the public for more free speech, Facebook is being asked to turn its back on them (and its shareholders) and continue to exclude dissenting views on issues ranging from COVID to climate change.
These members know that censorship only works if there are no alternatives. The problem is that there are alternatives. Fox News reportedly has more Democrats watching it than left-leaning rival CNN, which now faces its own massive cuts and plummeting ratings.
For whatever reason, these companies face declining interest in what they offer. Yet, some Democrats are pushing them to double-down on the same course of effectively writing off half of the electorate and the audience market.
This type of pressure worked in the past because individual executives are loathe to be tagged personally in these campaigns. However, their companies are paying the price in carrying out these directives from Congress.
In the past, many companies willingly — if not eagerly, in the case of pre-Musk Twitter — carried out censorship as surrogates, as the internal Twitter documents released by Musk have indicated. Some public officials knew they could circumvent the First Amendment by getting these companies to block opposing views by proxy. However, the public and the marketplace may succeed where the Constitution could not — and that’s precisely what these officials fear, as they see the control of social media erode heading toward the 2024 election.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg once famously told his company to “Move fast and break things.” When it comes to censorship, however, these members of Congress are warning “Not so fast!” if Facebook is considering a break in favor of free speech.
The true totalitarians have revealed themselves.
Soon these Democrats will have no power to do anything
If Zuck had any balls, he’d cancel Shifforbrains’ account.
I would suggest the “Bamber Bridge” solution.
In the UK in WW2 the residents of Bamber Bridge, a small town in the North, had black and white USA serviceman in their pub, and didn’t care. Everyone got on.
The white senior officers put their feet down and demanded that there be no mixing of US servicemen in the UK public house.
…. so they banned the white servicemen 🙂
Inside Meta’s Oversight Board: 2 Years of Pushing Limits
http://www.wired.com /story/inside-metas-oversight-board-two-years-of-pushing-limits/
I have never used Facebook but I wonder what happens if you quote from the Podesta emails on Wikileaks or post a link to them? Unsurprisingly I see Wikilieaks searches have been producing “dead ends” though I have to taken the time to see if Archive.org still has them. Total MSM blackout on the worst contents of Podesta’s own words, look them up and judge for yourself. Even just looking up “Podesta brothers art collection” will chill you to the bone. I never looked at the “Q” material because I assumed it was disinfo to throw attention away from Podesta’s own words.
Note also there is a bona fide “insider” whistleblower from the EcoHealth Alliance presenting a case for a sinister cover-up regarding the orgins of Covid.
https://therightscoop.com/ecohealth-alliance-whistleblower-says-covid-was-genetically-engineered-leaked-from-wuhan-and-blames-us-government/
Though I have not heard any reports about it on the “news”.
WHY ARE YOU NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS ?? THIS ENDS THE USA !! PLEASE GET THIS OUT THERE it ENDS FUTURE ELECTION CHALLENGES !!!!ATTENTION!!!THIS IS HAPPENING NOW!!! Schumer says he expects omnibus to include electoral count overhaul
Time is running out to update the 1887 law, negotiators warn https://rollcall.com/2022/12/13/schumer-says-he-expects-omnibus-to-include-electoral-count-overhaul/
THIS IS WHAT REPUBLICAN SENATORS SAID IN JANUARY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ” Later Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told Manu that he was open to amending the 1887 law. “We are listening,” added Texas Sen. John Cornyn of Texas.” https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/05/politics/electoral-count-act/index.html
Until the CIA comes clean on all of the documents they won’t release regarding the Kennedy assassination, then we should not assume either party has any interest in preserving our constitutional republic.
But now, Tucker Carlson has dropped a stunning report. He said his team contacted someone who had access to the still hidden CIA documents that the Biden team hasn’t released. Tucker said they asked this person who had great cause to know and direct knowledge of what was in the documents, “Did the CIA have a hand in the murder of John F. Kennedy?” The response was a bombshell.
“The answer is yes. I believe they were involved. It’s a whole different country from what we thought it was. It’s all fake,” the person said.
Carlson noted that if this is true, it means you have a CIA that is totally beyond the control of the democratically elected government, so much so that it’s not held responsible for any involvement in the murder of a president. Carlson said that meant the former directors of the CIA including Mike Pompeo and John Brennan would have known this. He said they asked Pompeo to be on the show but he refused to come on the show.
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/12/17/tucker-bombshell-from-insider-about-cia-involvement-in-jfk-assassination-rfk-jr-calls-it-coup-detat-n674882
The Democrat Party the party of unashamed hate the champions of filth the destruction of open borders and new foreign wars. The protectors of all things EVIL. even the sexual abuse of children by adults. Those who shake their puny fists in the face of Almighty God and curse both Him and his children. Who bow the knee and their pitch black hearts to the prince of the powers of the air, and this present darkness. They who are lawless in mind an act and to their own shame know no shame or conscience. They make their demands: That the voices of reason. The voices of truth and hope. The pleas, that the disasters their political power have brought upon us might be considered and mitigated, That the protections of lawful discourse and protection of the faithful, the law abiding and the rational might be restored. That their voices once more be heard on an equal footing. They demand that all these voices be censored and silenced.
My prayer that the divine Justice of the ultimate Law giver. The God whom they do not know and deny might reign down upon their heads, and they fall face down from their buckling knees and declare without remedy Jesus Christ is LORD of ALL. Even the most reprobate unbeliever. Come, Lord Jesus! For in you alone Lord do we hope.
To bad Whitehouse did not protect teenage witness Jennifer Riviera and place her in witness protection when this lump was AG in Rhode Island. She was murdered before she could testify.
We are being ruled by card carrying communists now and they aren’t even trying to hide it. What’s next from the Democrats, brown boot
“enforcers”? Re-education camps? Gas chambers for all Conservatives?
Best video description of Democrats and Communist I’ve ever seen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJlxZsstv4Y
” . . . they aren’t even trying to hide it.”
Yes. That’s the terrifying thing to me.
Folks do understand that the FBI and democrats have interfered with our elections more than any Russian or other countries . All done through lies and deceptions yet nothing has be done to hold anyone accountable .
“…prohibit posts that make unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud.” Hey Blues, you can prevent voter fraud claims before they ever happen by running clean, transparent elections, not fudging your vote counts in secret, and not waiting weeks afterwards to post the results. I can already hear the response, “You can’t be serious! We can’t win by doing those things!”
It’s ironic that now they’re even demanding censorship, instead of just ignoring it,even though the Section 230 exemption is based on the “fact” that they supposedly don’t do any “publishing” or “editing” since they are just a platform.
When some criticized sicial medua censorship, they said mUh PrIvAtE cOrPuRaYsHuNs.
The letter proves they were arguing in bad faith.
Here is how delusional Leftist apologists have become:
The FBI shows up at your door. They do not pull their guns. They merely “suggest” that you stop posting your opinions on social media sites.
Is there a sane person anywhere who would *not* regard that as a threat?
“. . . Facebook was given a not-so-subtle threat that reducing its infamous censorship system will invite congressional action.” (JT)
That, too, is censorship. It is a threat to use the government’s police powers to eradicate dissent and to punish a person because of his opinions.
The Left’s leadership is infested with power-lusting censors, operating on the premise that Americans are helpless children who cannot think for themselves. The only “cure” for that defect is to endow the Left with the omnipotent power to force on us what they regard as “good” opinions, and to protect us from what they regard as “harmful” ones.
Their demands for government censorship is an open admission that they cannot win on the battle ground of ideas, that they have no arguments, no evidence for their policies — that they cannot make an appeal to reason. Compulsion is now their own weapon.
I have eviscerated most of Svelaz’s extensive idiotic faux legal arguments.
In the end why does it matter ?
Is this conduct morally acceptable, if it was done legally ?
One party conspired with the FBI, CIA, DHS, the media, to nudge or coerce social media to massively supress the truth and those who tried to speak it, treating tens of millions of voters like stupid cattle in order to gain power.
Are ANY of these people you would ever trust ?
We own our voices, our thoughts, opinions and the right to speak out. No one else does! Remember! They forget the one power we have over them. Our vote.
ElizaBethRc,
While I agree, I would not put it past Leftists to try to take that power from us as well.
you do NOT have a vote any longer,where you been lately?
They do not care about your, mine or anyone’s “vote”.
They know how to deal with “votes”.
Biden is in the White House with the “votes”.
Mark Zuckerberg (Meta/Facebook) won’t break with the Government “privately”, He will make overtures Publicly
but will not break-away from the demands and collusion of the Government. Just the same as Microsoft, Oracle, Google, Apple, Intel, Cisco, ….
has ties to DARPA, DHS, FBI, NSA, … There is no ‘conspiracy’ here, it always has been.
(and that’s why we have in part trillion dollar budgets – to pay these Corporate Contracts)
Read: https://qr.ae/pvAVpa
SO why not put the: psychological, behavioral, relational data to use and get the People to do your Bidding.
It’s obvious that Facebook was used to sway the 2016 Election but failed, Twitter was used to sway in the 2020 and was successful.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/08/darpa-social-networks-research-twitter-influence-studies
Total Information Awareness (TIA) canceled 2003
TIA’s core architecture continued development under the code name “Basketball.” According to a 2012 New York Times article, TIA’s legacy was “quietly thriving” at the National Security Agency (NSA).[10]
[10] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/opinion/whos-watching-the-nsa-watchers.html
DARPA’s LifeLog
The LifeLog program was canceled on February 3, 2004 (one day before the launching of Facebook)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_LifeLog
These operate under “Public” Corporations under contract.
No, all of the censorship of social media failed. The democrat voter fraud machine was allowed to win. Constitutionally, Trump won the 2020 election!
Beg-to-Differ, It was Donald Trumps impetuous use of Twitter that successfully rallied the Votes needed to win.
As lead counsel during the 1st impeachment and Chairman of House Select Committee on Intelligence Adam Schiff almost single-handedly provoked a U.S. war of aggression in Ukraine (2019).
Entertainment! When Fox is held to account for defamation. Has actual reporting. And stops attempting to cast comedic script as news then any dialogue coming from that source is irrelevant at best. But, , ,more likely a danger to society
What does Fox’s behavior have to do with the Federal government pursuing Orwellian goals in quashing dissent in the name of protecting the public. From what? Really, a repeat of Mao’s Cultural Revolution is taking shape on our own soil. Terrifying times but not because of government’s desire to promote censorship, but because a large percentage of Americans are just dandy with it.
95 % of all media has ingnored the release of the Twitter files showing how corrupt the the FBI and the democrats are . And you are condemning FOX the only news that has cover the Hunter Biden laptop and the Twitter file . What rock have you been living under .
why are you defending propaganda lite fox? they fooled you too eh.
Can I get some people’s thoughts on what the country would be like had the 2020 election information been released and shown to We The People? Why aren’t the Republicans fighting so that this will never happen again?
After all, as President Joe Biden asked, without censorship and wise editors, “How do people know the truth?”
This quote from an American president? China, Russia, Iran would all say the same thing.
Fox? These quotes? Are made without proper context.
Fox? These quotes? Are made without proper context.
This is almost how free speech should work. Someone comments and you claim it’s without proper context. To complete the process, provide the context that would validate your comment.
Here we all are at war over returning to the norms of a decade ago. Something close to free speech. Less of the woke nonsense.
From the left you would thing that in 2012:
thousands of blacks were being lynched, and the rest were all quasi slaves.
LGTBQ+ were being murdered on the streets with impunity
Violence was everywhere
The KKK was arround every corner,
Churches were being bombed
That the world of a decade ago was an incredible h311 hole.
And yet that is NOT the facts.
We are told by democrats that Facebook dare not back down on censorship. Never mind the overt threat, how is the world going to h311 if they do not ?
I am libertarian not conservative. I want to go forward not back. But I do not want to go forward amplifying a decade of mistakes.
We try, we fail, we learn we go back we try again. That is how progress is actually made.
The past was not perfect, I do not want to live there. But over the past decade we have made mistake after mistake – mostly from the left.
Looking back over my shoulder I do not see utopia, but I do see a place better than today.
Nor do I need to go back a decade – 3 years is plenty.
What is it that the collapse of the social media censorship regime will bring ?
What is it that complying with the threat of democrats is protecting us from ?
The answer ? At worst nothing. At best a better place than where we are.
The only “benefit” that has come from the mass social censorship has been more democrats in public office and more failure of democrats in public office.
If social media censorship was a boon, Democrats would not need to threaten anyone to continue it.
What negative trend line has been improved by SM censorship ?
Has censorship resulted in:
Less wars ?
Less mass shootings ?
Less violence ?
What is better as a result of censorship ?
Luke 6:43
For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush.
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good; and an evil man out of the evil [a]treasure of his heart brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
What is the good fruit of censorship ?
How is the world better ?
Its not.
The democrats threat is about political power, not the interests of the people.
John B. Say, There is no censorship industry or massive apparatus to censor. It’s just businesses doing what they are legally allowed to do. Musk is censoring liberal journalists because they are criticizing him on twitter. He’s not doing that a “free speech absolutist” is supposed to do. Apparently he’s become annoyed at the things that a digital public square brings and what others are saying about him.
Just yesterday he issued one of his now famous “polls” asking if he should remain as CEO of twitter. The result was a resounding no. Will he honor that or will he act like a dictator and remain?
Facebook is a private company and it CAN exercise content moderation or censorship if it wishes, just like Musk can with twitter which ironically Turley is looking away from.
Free speech absolutists like Turley and Musk are hypocrites. This is not about free speech. This is about those who are NOT constrained by the law or the constitution to do what they legally can do and it is their right. Turley wants everyone to adhere to the principles of the 1st amendment however when it comes to actually practicing it Turley or Musk are suddenly shy about it’s consequences and shield themselves from it by doing exactly what they criticize others of doing. Banning, censoring, or revoking privileges to those who violate their rules. Never mind the fact that to be a free speech absolutist means there should be little to no exceptions. But when it gets a little too close to home they start making some big exceptions for themselves.
Censorship is necessary in certain situations. But it’s also a reality that private entities have the right to censor anytime anyone they wish if those who are using THEIR platforms, THEIR business. It’s that part that conservatives and libertarians have difficulty grasping. You talk about personal Liberty and freedom. Companies and corporations also have that and they can exercise it any time. You don’t have to use twitter of facebook. They are not crucial necessities. You can still exercise free speech free from their censorship by other means. They are not the only means to express ideas and share information. That is why Trump created his own platform where he can dictate how it would be run. There’s always a platform to meet YOUR needs. That is the freedom that you still have. You have a choice.
What occurred is censorship. That is beyond any doubt.
What occurred is election interference. That is beyond doubt.
Those are facts.
That is true whether what occurred was moral or legal.
You constantly have problems understanding that:
Everything that is sometimes legal, is not always legal.
Everything that is sometimes moral, is not always moral.
I do not think there is anyone who has said that Social Media may not ever ban people. Nor that they may not ever adjust the visibility of posts.
You conflate that with they can ALWAYS do so, except that you suddenly backtrack when you perceive the politics in reverse.
The facts that even you have agreed to, do not prove the conduct that Twitter and the US government engaged in are either moral or legal.
That claim on your part is DEAD. There is no Social Media may Always ban people, nor always adjust visibility as they please.
You refuse to cede the obvious.
For those of us not driven by motivated reasoning – and your finding one way pre musk, and the opposite after is ample demonstration that your reasoning is motivated, we care about the actual facts.
It is an established fact that Twitter violated its own TOS – something you have spent dozens of posts arguing binds users, and is the justification for censorship.
It is an established fact that Twitter’s censorship was heavily biased – more than 95% of those censored were conservatives or libertarians.
It is an established fact that Twitter’s censorship violated its own internal guidelines. communications between those controlling the censorship expose that in their own words. They knew that and did it anyway.
It is an established fact that the Biden campaign, the DNC, the Democratic Party, to name most of the private groups so far identified actively sought and nearly always got the censorship they wanted.
It is an established fact that DHS, CISA, FBI, The Biden White House, Katie Hobbs, to name most of the government entities so far identified actively sought and nearly always got the censorship they wanted.
It is also a fact that super majorities of people consider this wrong, and believe that it altered the outcome of elections in 2020 and 2022.
It is an established fact that FBI made requests specific to elections that have nothing to do with any law enforcement function of the FBI.
It is an established fact that FBI communications varied in form between requests and demands.
It is an established fact that Twitters decisions makers expressed concerns, that the FBI requests exceeded what even these people openly hostile to conservatives and libertarians thought was appropriate
There are many other established facts but those are sufficient for now.
The above is far more than enough to persuade 70-80% of people that this was wrong.
That it was a successful attempt to improperly win elections.
As an aside, that conclusion on the part of large numbers of people is morally damaging to the left.
People who are willing to commit one immoral act to gain power, are likely to commit others.
This makes all other accusations more plausible.
I doubt I have persuaded you – but I did not need to persuade 70-80% of people – they reached the conclusion this was wrong – immoral on their own.
Whether this is legal or not is a separate question. The most easily addressed legal determination is the involvement of government actors.
Even by your claims from the Brennan center, there is a giant gulf between surveilance and action – even requests for action.
I would also note there is a difference between the FBI and other government actors. The FBI is a law enforcement body and the standards are more well defined. Further when those standards are met, the FBI is actually allowed to act.
We can debate whether the FBI can monitor Twitter – even the standards you reference require a law enforcement purpose.
In the US misinformation is protected speech – there are only rare instances in which it would be illegal. The FBI can not monitor election misinformation. Nor can it act on it, there is no crime. Nor would asking Twitter to ban, supress, or delete a post be a legitimate FBI action even if a law was broken.
The FBI is a law enforcement agency, to a limited extent it is also a counter intelligence agency, its “monitoring” most be for a law enforcement or counter intelligence purpose. The counter intelligence distinction is very important – because in the counter intelligence domain the FBI has far broader powers. It does so specifically so long as its actions do not intersect with those of US persons. The FBI in a counter intelligence role could direct Twitter to delete tweets by non US persons. But the moment US persons are involved the US constitution and constitutional rights applies and the FBI is a law enforcement actor not a counter intelligence actor.
I would note that I have personally verified all the above facts, but it has been reported that other US agencies, such as DHS, CIA or the state department were involved. FBI is under DHS, regardless, DHS is subject to the same rules as the FBI. CIA can not monitor the actions of US persons in the US. The state department has no election related authority, and no law enforcement authority.
It has been evident from your remarks that you seem to think that government agencies can do pretty much whatever they want and are not constrained by law or the constitution. That is not so. The state department has no role in apprehending kidnappers in the US as an example.
Requests by Hobb’s are also problematic – because she is SoS in AZ, she is more than a government actor, She is a government actor involved in elections with a conflict of interests.
The Biden WH is a government actor, and has a conflict of interests, but is not directly involved in elections.
There are also strict laws covering the political activities of people in government. These are different depending on the role.
Executive branch Government employees who are not political appointees may not in the course of their job engage in political activity at all.
Any effort to monitor elections who have a very high risk of running afoul of the law. Law enforcement could act, but only with respect to a criminal investigation. The standards for political appointees and elected officials and staff are different. They can engage in political activity, but they can not use government resources to do so. The can not as an example use government email addresses for political purposes.
Most of the above is related to the political nature of these actions, not specifically the first amendment speech issues.
The law and constitution regarding speech is in addition to the above. There is zero doubt that many of the contacts with Twitter were from Government. All government actions involving speech – particularly political speech must meet First amendment standards.
It is highly unlikely that the FBI or WH asking Twitter to remove a single tweet that did not violate the law who survive a first amendment test.
Especially a tweet about elections. Regardless, the extensive entanglement particularly of FBI with Twitter, for a long list of reasons each of which independnetly is sufficient with near certainty transform Twitter into a government agent and that means this was a violation of the first amendment – it is government supression of free speech. I would strongly suggest that you actually look at the details of the interaction of Twitter with the FBI. Matt Taibbi described the relationship as Twitter being a reluctant part of the FBI. That is far more than the standard for a 1st amendment violation.
I would note there is already litigation on issues closely related to this. Federal courts in Lousiana and I beleive elsewhere have already allowed subpoenaing government officials – such as Faucci and people in the Whitehouse and CDC and FDA and NIH for their roles in censoring free speech on Twitter regarding Covid.
I would further note that there is a differences between – were Twitters actions a violation of the First amendment and were those in governments actions a violation of the first amendment. It is highly likely Twitter was acting as a government agent. There is ZERO doubt at all that those in government were acting as government agents.
Finally there are moral and hypocritical issues. A political party and its members who are constantly accusing others of being anti-democratic is both immoral and hypocritical when it is censoring the american public – legally or otherwise. That is much worse when they are censoring the truth. It is immoral and certainly undemocratic – your value not mine, to rant about threats to democracy when YOU are the threat to the democracy.
We have heard democrats rant about voter suppression – censoring what voters are allowed to know is voter suppression.
Shepherding as many voters to vote as possible, while assuring they are deprived of the information needed to vote is voter suppression, and it is anti-democratic.
It is also incredible hypocracy.
We have had myriads of accusations leveled at Trump and republicans over the past 6 years. None of them true.
But nearly all have actually been true of democrats.
“ I do not think there is anyone who has said that Social Media may not ever ban people. Nor that they may not ever adjust the visibility of posts.”
Turley does. He’s a free speech absolutist, he and you have complained incessantly about twitter pre-Musk, banning people because of their views or their sharing of information in violation of their policies. You DO think that. Backtracking now just makes you look more foolish that you already have.
“ It is an established fact that Twitter violated its own TOS – something you have spent dozens of posts arguing binds users, and is the justification for censorship.
It is an established fact that Twitter’s censorship was heavily biased – more than 95% of those censored were conservatives or libertarians.”
So what if they violated their own TOS? Musk is doing exactly that right now. Obviously it points to a very complicated balance that even twitter pre-Musk had issues with. Musk has already backtracked multiple times on his own rules. What is at issue is that this whole “anti-free speech” schtick from Turley is nothing more than a complaint about others not adhering to HIS principles. That others choose NOT to do what he would like everyone else to do.
95% of conservatives and republicans were censored because they were the biggest group sharing tweets, and links to information that violated THEIR policies. Naturally there is going to be a bias due to the large number of people sharing and re-sharing banned tweets or links. Their algorithms note that. It’s conservatives and republicans who are their own worst offenders when it comes to censorship. Twitter had every right to enforced it’s policies just as Musk has right now. He can choose to ignore them just as twitter did before his takeover. Nothing has changed.
“ It has been evident from your remarks that you seem to think that government agencies can do pretty much whatever they want and are not constrained by law or the constitution.”
False. I never said they can do whatever they want. Don’t start putting words into my mouth. What I said was that they CAN share information with SM and they CAN refer certain posts or accounts for further scrutiny. No law prevents them from doing that. And it is NOT unconstitutional either. You have not been able to provide exactly what laws or constitutional articles prevent that.
“ Requests by Hobb’s are also problematic – because she is SoS in AZ, she is more than a government actor, She is a government actor involved in elections with a conflict of interests.”
Your argument on the AZ SOS has already been deconstructed and debunked. Sue had the authority to threaten legal action because the Cochise EB was illegally withholding certification and it was criminal according to AZ law. Courts and the AZ Supreme Court agreed this is not illegal to threaten them with prosecution when the actors are being unlawful. The EB was withholding certification in protest of what was going on in Maricopa county and that is not a legitimate legal reason for withholding certification. Two EB members who had no experience and were staunch Trump supporters were making a protest by illegally withholding the county’s certification.
The FBI being involved with SM regarding information that may have been deliberately targeted to misinform had a right to share it with SM. It was and always has been SM that ultimately decides what to do with it.
Warning them is not asking or demanding they censor.
Can you stop lying ?
Twitter was banning people in VIOLATION of their own policies.
Which BTW is illegal.
We are past the point were you can pretend ignorance.
Do you really wish to continue this argument that it is OK to lie massively to rig an election to actively interfere with tens of millions of voters knowing the truth, to silence anyone trying to tell any truth that might be politically harmful, to do so in collusion with one political party, one campaign, as well as FBI, DHS, CIA, …. ?
You really want to argue that it is moral to grab power by flooding the election with voters who you have deprived of the truth ?
What was done was illegal. It was immoral. You might as well have burned the constitution.
What was done proves that democrats despise and do not trust their own voters with the truth.
There is no authority exception to the AZ extortion law.
Nor would it matter if there was.
Hobb’s is not the AG, she is not law enforcement.
Further the law cited was not violated.
You have debunked nothing except your own claim to morality.
Your Hobb’s argument is also stupid as it is responding to the wrong claim.
You seem to miss the fact that Hobb’s as SoS was also in contanct with Twitter seeking to takedown opposition political voices.
You make very good points here.
Just for reference – publishing publicly available, but sensitive information about a person is actually a crime in some states.
There is no public interest met in providing realtime information on the location of a person or their family.
Speech that is criminal is not protected speech.
While I do not think Musk is a free speech absolutist or that Twitter should be all speech that is legal.
There is absolutely no hypocrisy is suspending people for illegal speech.
“ Just for reference – publishing publicly available, but sensitive information about a person is actually a crime in some states.”
It can’t be illegal to publish it if the information is publicly available. It is a crime to stalk and harass a person by using that information. There is a distinction.
“ While I do not think Musk is a free speech absolutist or that Twitter should be all speech that is legal.
There is absolutely no hypocrisy is suspending people for illegal speech.”
You may not think he is, BUT he CLAIMS to be a free speech absolutist like Turley CLAIMS to be one. To be an absolutist is to have very little to no exceptions.
Publishing publicly available information is NOT a crime. Suspending people because they published publicly available information IS hypocritical because it is not illegal speech. Your pitiful attempts at justifying Elon’s obvious hypocrisy by making weak arguments that publicly available information is illegal speech is not only stupid, it’s simply ridiculous.
Suspending journalists because they reported on the story IS the very antithesis of what a free speech absolutist is. Elon Musk is a massive hypocrite.
“It can’t be illegal to publish it if the information is publicly available.”
This is an explanation of the CA cyber stalking law, that includes doxxing.
The requirement is that you provide sensitive personal information – it is irrelevant if it is publicly available,
what is relevant is that you either do so with the intent that it be used to cause harm
or that you intended to cause fear of harm
or that it was likely to result in harm.
https://www.aerlawgroup.com/blog/fact-or-fiction-doxing-someone-can-get-you-arrested/
Here is ways that you can be criminally charged in Ohio
https://columbuscriminaldefenseattorney.com/blog/can-doxing-someone-can-get-you-arrested/
How many more examples do you need ?
Need I remind you AGAIN that I do not just pull things out of my ass like you do.
I do nto say things I can not back up.
Why would anyone care what someone who has no respect at all for free speech,
who thinks that it is perfectly acceptable to deprive hundreds of millions of people of the truth in order to gain political power,
beleives with respect to what “absolute free speech” means.
Musk has previously said that he would continue to censor unprotected speech – speech that is illegal.
Doxxing is actually illegal in some places.
I do not know what any final resolution of Musks conflict with the EU will be,
But it is possible that he may be forced – you know government is FORCE, to comply with EU laws,
and censor more than he wants to.
The good news is that while you may not be able to say “a man can not be a lesbian” in the EU,
You can publish the NY Post article on Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Musk did not suspend the journalists because they posted the story.
Many unsuspended journalists reported the story.
He suspended these because they provided access to the web site where people could find his location.
I would further note that Musk’s Tail number – necessary to use most public tracking systems is not publicly available.
Sweeny had to hack the ADS-B system. While that May not be illegal. It is not the same as publicly available data.
“To be an absolutist is to have very little to no exceptions.”
Correct.
I would presume that you have no problems with a free speech absolutist censoring child porn ?
Do you have a problem with a free speech absolutists censoring speech advocating violence ?
Do you have a problem with a free speech absolutist censoring a list of the names and addresses of people in witness protection ?
What about victims of domestic violence ?
What about copyrighted material ?
Musk blocked Sweeney and Journalists after an incident in which a stalker dressed in a ninja outfit – apparently armed intercepted his family as they were leaving the airport.
I am OK with that. I would hope you would be too.
Ultimately whether you think those exceptions conform to absolutism or not, Musk is going to have to censor somethings.
I doubt he is going to go to jail for allowing child porn.
One of the twitter files revelations is that Twitters trust and safety people put far more effort into censoring conservatives, than stopping child porn.
Musk is already in conflict with the EU over their legal censorship requirements.
I hope he either works something out or can defy the EU without significant consequence
But I do not expect him to pay huge fines or go to jail rather than come to terms with the EU.
“Elon Musk is a massive hypocrite.”
Why ?
He censored posts that violate the law in some states.
I would also note that the person tracking Musk was also engaged in extortion. He sought money in return for refraining for a harmful act.
With respect to private censorship.
AGAIN you are trying to pretend that there is a free speech right to censor there is not.
There is a private right to censor, but it is neither absolute nor unlimited as you claim.
Government agents – even if they are private actors, may not do what government itself can not do – that includes censor.
You have spent hundreds of posts dwelling on Twitters TOS – that is a contract – specifically it is a contract of adhesion, though that is not relevant in this context. While it affirms Twitters right to censor users, it defines the limits of that right. When twitter itself acts outside the TOS, that is breach of contract – illegal (not criminal).
Nor is everything that is legal, moral.
It is also likely that there is a valid Tort claim by people who were harmed as a result of being willfully deprived of information.
I would presume you accept that if a company failed to provide derogatory information regarding the company that people who bought the stock would have a tort fraud claim.
If a financial reporter willing participated in supressing that information – there might be a tort claim there.
Regardless, the conduct would be obviously immoral.
Atleast to people who have the slightest understanding of morality.
“ If social media censorship was a boon, Democrats would not need to threaten anyone to continue it.”
Censorship in social media is not just about the act itself. Republicans and conservatives love to dictate how/what others should behave or do as long as they get to do it themselves without being held accountable. Private entities are free to choose to censor certain things they deem wrong in their view even if it’s a company or corporation. Turley and Musk do this all the time despite their pretentious claims of being free speech absolutists. it’s a joke.
Democrats are not “threatening” social media to keep censoring others. They are literally making the point that these are private entities and they are free to have that choice. Suggesting, referring, or warning them of certain content that may be harmful IS also part of free speech. Even government agencies are allowed to refer to certain content or videos or information to social media because social media is the only entity that decides whether to censor, limit, ban, or revoke the privileges of account holders. They have terms of service that EVERYONE signs “I AGREE”. To THEIR terms. People stupidly, and ignorantly click on that button without ever reading the terms and conditions for using THEIR platforms. That includes twitter under Musk. Nobody is required to use these platforms. Nobody is forced to use them and nobody is being coerced to agree to their terms. It’s ridiculously simple. You don’t like what they are doing, don’t use their product. Conservatives excel at this simple idea, yet fail daily to understand when it applies to them.
This is not some sinister plot or agenda from the left, or liberals, or socialists. This is a failure of republicans and conservatives and yes even some liberals to understand the concept behind the 1st amendment and what free speech is. It applies to EVERYONE, including companies and corporations and yes, yes, even government.
If Adam Schiff has a problem with falsehoods®™ and misinformation®™, he can leave Facebook.
The letter implies that he has a problem with others reading falsehoods®™ and misinformation®™.
It is not the government’s business if falsehoods®™and muisinformation®™ spread on Twitter, Facebook, this very blog’s comments, a Holocaust education discussion forum, or even a forum whose advertised purpose is to promote white supremacy or militant Islamism.
Not a republican or a conservative. I am not interested in counter claims about Republicans or conservatives.
If you independently wish to raise specific issues regarding specific conduct of republicans we can have that conversation.
But threats to free speech are fatal to self government – PERIOD. Probably fatal to all government.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels.
Censorship ultimately requires power. It is inherently immoral.
You are trespassing on one of the most fundamental freedoms.
Most people consider freedom of speech to be the most important freedom, without which all other freedom perishes.
Most 2nd amendment advocates beleive the purpose of the right to bear arms is specifically to deal with the failure of the first amendment.
Regardless, you are in very dangerous grounds.
I was not born when Joe MacCarthy was senator. Regardless, that was one of the darker moments in our countries history.
Yet MacCarthy singled out a small group of communists threatening their right to free speech.
Democrats today – YOU. seek to deprive everyone in the country from speech you do not like. Nor do you even really care whether what is said is true or not. Twitter may not have known for sure if the NY Post story was True – though they could have found out. But Joe Biden did, and the FBI did.
You have made all kinds of efforts to game this, to avoid facing repugnant, immoral and likely illegal acts.
Hollywood studios were private actors when they blacklisted actors for disfavored political speech.
Sen. MacCarthy merely asked private businesses to blacklist communists for their speech.
My respect for Alan Derschowitz Starts with his participation in the efforts to allow the NAzi’s to march through Skokie.
Those are the american values that I am proud of – our willingness to allow even the most repugnant voices to speak.
Yet the Democratic party today, like the Republicans (and some democrats) in the 50’s is doing exactly what the anti-americans with power did in the 50’s, Censoring, blacklisting, blackmailing advertisers, getting people fired for expressing disfavored opinions.
MacCarthy targeted the most bloody vile and dangerous political ideology that ever existed, a position held by a small minority of americans.
If ever there was some group fully deserving of censorship, blacklisting, etc. it would be communists.
Today’s democrats seek to do the same to half the country.
I will be happy to deal with present bad conduct of republicans – AFTER the very real and very unamerican threat of the left.
I hope and expect that in ten years you will be pretending never to have posted the defenses of this censorship that you are doing today.
I hope that this moment will be far more reviled than the MacCarthy era ever was – because this is much worse.
I joined the ACLU specifically to fight for the right of NAZi’s to march through my town, and I stood with a candle protesting NAZI beleifs as they marched through town square.
Maybe some republicans are johnny come latelys to free speech and individual liberty.
AFTER we have fixed the mess you have made, I may even thank you for teaching republicans and conservatives the importance of free speech and our other liberties.
I have fought for Gay rights since I first understood what being Gay actually was.
I grew up with Times V Sullivan and the Washington Post and the Pentagon Papers.
I have fought against right wing efforts to censor “pornography”.
You are on the wrong side of a tremendously important issue.
The very fact that you do not grasp how very wrong this is, seriously morally condemns you and all others who think this is OK.
During WWII the allies conduct of the war was frequently immoral.
Some people spoke out. But almost all people focused on the far more malignant conduct of the nazi’s.
Why is it that you wish to be compared to Nazi’s ?
Propoganda, censorship, election rigging, these are the attributes of actual totalitarian regimes.
So not act like fascists if you do not wish to be identified as fascists.
No Svelaz, I have absolutely no interest in your fascist apologism.
If you were absolutely correct about every single point of law – and you are wrong about nearly all of them.
This would all still be vile and immoral.
The MaCarthy era was LESS repugnant than what you are defending.
American adherence to free speech has always had a history of sometimes successful efforts to constrain that right.
The American value of free speech is the single most fundamental freedom that separates the US from the rest of the world.
By the start of the 21st century the fight for the broadest understanding of free speech appeared to be almost won.
You could burn the flag if you wanted, you could sit for the pledge of allegance, you could buy playboy on the news stand
you could join the communist party without fear of jail or being blacklisted.
And you want to try to game that ?
If you are right about a single aspect of the law(which you are not) – then that law is wrong.
The objective is NOT to figure out how to circumvent the first amendment to get what you want.
You, the left, the media, the democrats, the CIA, the FBI, the DNC, the Biden campaign, Social media, all conspired to silence the truth, to silence your political opponents, to deprive voters of the truth, to win power in an election.
Legal or not that is WRONG. Done by government or private actors that is WRONG.
If you crave power so much that you will censor others – you can not be trusted with power.
We all listened for months, years as you ranted about how dangerous, anti-democratic, authoritarian and fascist republicans were.
While you were busy engaging in the largest violation of free speech this country has ever known.
“ The objective is NOT to figure out how to circumvent the first amendment to get what you want.”
Wrong. That is not what the “objective” is. That is part of your fantasy in believing that anything related to the left is evil and fascist. You’re simply oblivious to the basic fact that freedom of speech is may be a natural right to you. But we are also a nation of laws and you have acknowledged that the rule of law is important even when you don’t like those laws.
You are certainly entitled to believe that it is wrong or immoral to censor speech of others when the constitution does not prohibit it. Ironically that is also what comes with the right to freedom of speech. A company, corporation, or a private individual if they have that power they certainly can exercise censorship, banning, or basically telling you to shut up. The upside to that is that you can still exercise your right outside of their domains of power. You can quit the company, corporation, or get away from an individual that is censoring you and go speak somewhere else. You always have options. You are not limited by their platforms or “soapboxes”. You have your own. You can revile the immorality of others being able to censor you or prevent your views from being expressed in certain forums, but ultimately they can’t stop you when you simply make your views known by using the multitude of options at your disposal.
It’s not about power. You are stuck with that singular idea and ignoring the fact that you have far more options than you think.
Republicans and conservatives are the real power hungry agencies. They are the first to ban ideas like CRT, systemic racism, LGBTQ points of view, how the sexes should comport to “traditional roles”, burning books they don’t like, even Korans. They are the first to demonize other groups, immigrants, and those who are different. They are the first to segregate believers from non-believers, etc, etc, etc.
There are lots of examples. This is not about power for the left. It’s about pointing out the contradictions of the right and the hypocrisy that oozes out of it.
Ant-free speech rants like those of Turley are not about free speech. They are about the right to have a captive audience and be heard. It’s about a right to be listened to when there is no such thing. Conservatives and republicans have always had their free speech rights. They are not being trampled on or taken away by the left. They are merely upset at the simple fact that there are not a lot of people who wish to listen to them or their outdated ideas. Turley complains about conservative law students being afraid to speak up and self censor because of “anti-free speech” zealots. These are law students who are expected to make their case, to argue their views in the face of ridicule, mockery, and criticism. Instead you have them cowering and mewling to their professors that they are being silenced because of their views. The ridiculousness of that is evident in the fact that they are crying to their professors because they don’t have the courage to face the reality that free speech is. It’s also about being exposed to criticism, ridicule, mockery, and yes, even embarrassment, shame, and guilt, Free speech is not supposed to be safe and comfortable and accepting. It’s brutal and unforgiving to those who don’t fully understand it. Rather than understand they attack those who point this out and cry “anti-free speech”.
All I’m defending is the basic truth of what having the right of free speech Is. It’s also about those who CAN censor you and those who CAN criticize you, and those who CAN force you to shut up if you agree to THEIR rules. Nobody forces you to sign up for twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc. It’s all voluntary and all YOUR responsibility to understand THEIR terms, THEIR rules and THEIR rights. If you stupidly agree without ever reading or fully understanding those You forfeit any right to complain about losing your free speech rights. YOU or others have the liberty to walk into those circumstances, you have the liberty and freedom to walk away too.
Right, your only accidentally a fascist.
When you do evil, you are evil.
You and your cabal lied to the american people. You lied to voters,
I do not waht to say that is excusable, but unfortunately politicians partcularly democrats do that all the time.
But in 2020 you all did something much different. You supressed the Truth. You did so by silencing people people telling the truth.
Telling the truth about the NY Post story – even just telling people it existed.
Telling the truth about the problems with mailin voting – including the problems in the Democratic primaries just a few months before.
Election lies are common place.
The total destruction of the truth has never happened before.
WaPo says “democracy dies in darkness”, as they helped you turn out the lights.
I do not beleive it is wrong to silence people telling the truth.
IT IS WRONG. IT IS EVIL.
You seem to forget that this was not mere censorship – censorship is in most cases wrong.
It was censorship of the truth.
It was deliberately depriving voters of the truth.
It was not just lying – we get that from democrats all the time.
It was not just hiding the truth.
It was SILENCING the Truth.
It was SILENCING people telling the Truth.
It was theft of the truth from voters.
It was a clear message to YOUR OWN voters – that they can not be trusted to know the truth and still vote for you.
It was a rejection of what YOU claim to be your core value. It was a rejection of Democracy.
If you are going to use all power that you have to prevent people from learning the truth
Why bother even having elections ? Just declare yourself the winner – you clearly are not willing to risk an honest election.
Why should anyone trust you ever again ?
Please answer.
In what way is it moral to silence others telling the Truth about you ?
In what way is it moral to not just lie to your own supporters, but to make it nearly impossible for them to learn the truth ?
You spent the past 6 years ranting Trump lies, But the biggest whopper of all is yours, and worse still not only did you lie over and over.
But you silenced people telling the truth.
It is not actually moral to silence people you think are spreading false information.
It is 1000 times worse to silence those you KNOW are telling the Truth.
And worse still to actively prevent voters from learning the truth in order to gain power.
This is the ends justifies the means on a huge scale.
If you are willing to do this, why should anyone believe you would not commit ballot fraud ?
Why should anyone believe you would not rig voting machines ?
Why should anyone beleive you about anything ?
John B. Say, the key word is “truth”. What you believe is the truth is actually not and that is the problem. The truth has been put right in front of your face and you continue to willfully deny it even when the evidence backs it up. The seriousness of your denial becomes evident when you willfully deny the evidence before you out of spite or an unwillingness to concede a reality. The result is one episode of cognitive dissonance after another. This is how conspiracy theories get a grip on you and never let go.
You don’t even know what a fascist is. You have been taken for a ride and are still oblivious to it or are so deep into the shame that you’ve developed some sort of Stockholm syndrome with those feeding you BS. There are those who have use the word of the day to label “leftists” from fascist, socialist, Marxist, communist, or the more rare illiberal. All randomly trotted out whenever it fits and conflated with each other.
The left is not “evil” or morally corrupt as you keep claiming. The right has a longer history of that than anything else. The dead giveaway is the sheer hypocrisy and the oblivious nature of not realizing it by way of cognitive dissonance.
That is not saying the left is not free from such transgressions. Your focus on the left is be default because it’s not as convenient to mention that of the right and how obvious it is.
For example Musk claims all the time he’s a free speech absolutist meaning he is for the most limited of censorship or restraining of free speech. Obviously we all know now that his absolutist philosophy is pure BS. Just as it is of Turley. It’s one thing to claim to be an absolutist. It’s another to actually practice it and Musk is failing miserably.
“ It is not actually moral to silence people you think are spreading false information.”
Is it moral to silence those who you KNOW are spreading false information? The Catholic Church killed people who they believed were spreading false information about the church. It was deemed morally justified. What about the Salem witch trials? People lied about what they knew and used it to punish innocents because of false information. Those who dared to contradict them were deemed heretics.
Today to silence those who spread false information deliberately or ignorantly CAN be justified. Elon Musk proved that when he suspended multiple journalists for reporting what he believed was harmful information about him. The right is currently rushing to his defense including you while being oblivious to the hypocrisy that the rest of us see and point out. You would readily silence those who you think are spreading false information if it were coming from the left given your obvious animosity towards the them. Thus exposing the hypocrisy that is what set off the “attacks” on the right.
You are not really trying to get into a debate over what is Truth are you ?
You are really desparate.
Grow up, You LIED – Big Time, You got Caught Big time.
You MORE than Lied – You silenced others. You deprived your own voters
There is no debate that you deprived them of Truth.
But it does not matter.
Your What is truth argument is self defeating and the flaw to cesorship.
Who decides what is truth ?
The ACTUAL answer is each of us decides for our selves.
What we may not do, is decide for others.
That is immoral.
It is just as immoral to decide for another without there knowledge and explicit permission what they are entitled to know, as it is to lie to them.
While there are many reasons that you can not censor lies. One of those is that most of us – including very intelligent people are piss poor at determining what is true.
51 Intelligence officials decided the Hunter Biden Laptop was Russian disinformation.
That was false.
Were they lying ?
Were they decieved ?
Did they excercise poor judgement as a result of political biases ?
Or were they just all wrong at the same time ?
I do not know. What I know is they were wrong, and that it would not have been very hard for them to not be wrong.
If 51 of supposedly the best can be so wrong, how is it that you think anyone has the ability to decide what is true and what is misinformation ?
The answer is they can not.
While we do ultimately resolve what is true – there are few idiots out their still claiming the hunter biden laptop is russian disinformation, most of us now fully understand that. More would have faster but for YOUR censorship.
“You don’t even know what a fascist is”
Fascism: “Everything in the state. Nothing outside the state. Nothing against the state”
Benito Mussolini
That is fascism. Sounds alot like Socialism, Because it is. Mussolini started as a socialist.
And as both The Italian fascists and the Nazi’s were completely open about – they were Socialists – to their core.
You can make up your own fake definition of Fascism.
But Mussolini’s works. It fits the Nazi’s, it fits the italian fascists, and it fits the progressive left.
“The left is not “evil” or morally corrupt as you keep claiming.”
For a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.
For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush.
A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good;
and an evil man out of the evil a treasure of his heart brings forth evil.
For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.
The fruit of the left is bitter.
Those who act immorally are immoral.
You conspired to lie, to supress the truth, to silence truth, to silence those you disagreed with.
To deprive your own people of damaging truth that might cost you power.
That is evil. That is immoral, that is you.
“The dead giveaway is the sheer hypocrisy and the oblivious nature of not realizing it by way of cognitive dissonance.”
Did you actually think about this before you wrote it ?
It is a completely unfalsifiable argument.
That means that you can point it at anyone and never be able to prove it is false.
I am sure it is also a named falacy but I am not going to bother to sort out which one.
I would note that unfalsifiable is a common feature of your arguments.
When you decide truth is subjective – everything goes out the window.
Nothing is true, nothing is false, nothing is good, nothing is evil.
Back to the left – the ends justifies the means.
“Is it moral to silence those who you KNOW are spreading false information?”
No,
for many many reasons.
But at the top of the list is because no matter how certain you are that you KNOW,
you could be wrong, and frequently are.
Massive amounts of “false information” about covid has subsequently proven true.
Much of what was beleived to be true
has proven false.
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
I would highly recommend reading this. it is only 27 pages long
and it will address most of your misunderstandings about free speech.
It will save me the time of having to explain to you what we have known for 200+ years.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/All-Minus-One-2nd-Edition-PDF.pdf
“Today to silence those who spread false information deliberately or ignorantly CAN be justified. ”
Nope, it is always immoral.
Just one of many reasons is because nearly everyone who is certain they know what is false is wrong.
Again – you censored all kinds of information about Covid that turned out to be write.
The CDC was just sued over its efforts to censor information about ivarmectin.
The lawsuit was thrown out – because even though the CDC now admits they were wrong – Ivarmectin actually works against Covid, their “advice” was not “final” it was only an advisory oppinion and everyone knows they are not trustworthy.
So why do we have CDC ?
Regardless, one of many reasons.
The half life of knowledge today is about 15yrs.
Half of everything you believe to be true right now, will be proven false in the next 15yrs.
This is not unusual. It is due to the rapid rate at which we are learning.
Fundimental principles of crystalography that helped create semi-conductors have been proven wrong recently
And this has allowed us to create even smaller semiconductors.
The entire history of the ascent of man has been rewritten so many times in the past 2 decades, the Smithsonian has just given up on the ascent of man exhibit, because whatever they put up will be obsolete by the time it opens.
The vast majority of major developments in psychology in the 50’s and 60’s have all been falsified.
The entire field of psychology is in turmoil.
You are correct that truth is a hard concept.
But there are actually things we know.
Those truths that we have beleived for the longest are the least likely to be proven false in the next 15 years.
There is a big uproar right now over the declassification of lots of documents from the Kennedy assassination.
While I am not certain that all the conclusions people are offering are true.
What is true is alot of what we were told was WRONG.
“Elon Musk proved that when he suspended multiple journalists for reporting what he believed was harmful information about him.”
All he proved is that left wing nut journalists beleive the rules do not apply to them.
No one is rushing to his defense.
He was right.
It is that simple.
As he said before he took over twitter – speach that is illegal, would continue to be blocked.
Doxxing – including providing publicly known addresses, is a crime, in many states including california.
Musk announced that he was revising the doxxing policy to include locaion information.
While he did so as a diredt result of an attack on his family,
it is also true that is consistent with many states laws.
Several journalists Stupidly jumped to immediately violate the policy and got suspended.
Serves them right.
Musk restored them quickly, but the new policy is absolutely in place.
They got their one free screwup.
“being oblivious to the hypocrisy that the rest of us see and point out.”
The hypocracy is yours.
NO ONE promised you absolute free speech.
Musk never promised absolute free speech.
He has ALWAYS been consistent that he would not allow speech that violated the law.
Your claims of hypocrisy are FALSE.
Now I am certain that Musk eventually will if he has not already censor something that is not illegal.
Twitter can not become the largest platform in the world – which I expect is Musks goal as an absolute free speech platform.
If that is your idea of hypocracy, it is deminimus.
What Musk has promised – and fallen short on, and admits, and is working on is complete transparency.
But he is starting from the Mess he inherited.
He has promised that in the future when someone is blocked – not only will that person know why, but everyone who tries to access them will know why, and for how long,
He has promised that if you are “shadow banned” – you will know it.
He has promised clear public rules – that Twitter will follow rigidly – likely enforced by Algorithm.
He has promised a transparent appeals process.
He has promised to end viewpoint censorship.
All things NOT true on Twitter 1.0.
I am not “rushing to his defense.
I am very happy with what he is doing.
I will tolerate the nasty left wing nut gadflies on my twitter feed in return for the knowledge that so long as I follow clear rules – I will not get banned. That no one on Twitter is going to say – I do not like what he is saying, shut him down.
In return I have to extend the same curtesey to all the left wing nuts.
I can live with that.
YOU can’t – that is actual hypocracy.
“You would readily silence those who you think are spreading false information if it were coming from the left given your obvious animosity towards the them. ”
Nope. I have NEVER called to silence anyone.
I want those on the left to say whatever they wish.
I am very happy about the twitter files – because I want what you say and do out in the open where everyone can see.
I fervently believe that when all voices can be heard, that most of the time all of us together will get it pretty close to right.
Not perfect, but the best that can be acheived in a world with imperfect humans.
That when we censor even when we censor false information we ensure that we make poorer choices.
You say it is just my belief this is immoral.
Lets assume that lying is moral. Lets presume that silencing the truth is moral. Lets presume that preventing your own voters from knowing the truth is moral.
If all those are moral why isn’t election fraud immoral ?
Why isn’t murder moral ?
If it is merely my belief that what you did was immoral, please provide some definition of right and wrong that you hold that would allow anyone to trust that you will not commit other acts that are generally accepted as immoral.
Explain how it can be right to lie, and more egregiously still silence the truth and those who speak the truth, and still wrong to stuff ballot boxes, or commit murder.
By claiming that silencing the truth and those who speak the truth is moral, you leave everyone including your own voters without any way of telling what you are not willing to do to get and keep power.
There is no right to be listened to.
There is also absolutely no right for YOU to prevent ME from listening to what I choose.
There is no right to silence.
“They are merely upset at the simple fact that there are not a lot of people who wish to listen to them or their outdated ideas. ”
If you do not wish to listen – DONT.
But YOU do not get to decide who another person listens to.
This is the CORE moral failure of the left – Self Evident in the immoral conduct of those of the left at Social Media.
And that is the You demand and take control of the rights of others.
YOU decided YOUR voters were not allowed to hear the Truth.
YOU decided that people would not be allowed to speak the truth.
YOU decided to Silence others to gain power.
The decision as to whether Republican ideas are outdated – and some of them are, is made by all of us – not by YOU.
It is made in an open public debate – that all of us are free to participate in or not as WE choose.
But you made up your mind and have decided there is no debate.
That no one else’s view but your matters.
“It’s also about being exposed to criticism, ridicule, mockery, and yes, even embarrassment, shame, and guilt, Free speech is not supposed to be safe and comfortable and accepting. It’s brutal and unforgiving”
All absolutely true.
No safe spaces. Especially at the university.
The ideology that is unable to stand up to the brutality of free speech is YOURS.
You do not debate ideas you do not like. You run and hide to “safe spaces”.
Or you bur the place down.
Or you scream and shout and silence anyone speaking so that no one else is free to listen.
You live in fear that your ideas will be exposed as the fraud they are.
Censor and criticize are NOT the same thing.
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
What occured at twitter, occured in back rooms. It occured hidden from the world.
It did so because the act of silencing others is morally wrong.
And those choosing to do so KNEW that it was wrong.
The twitter files are damning in many ways.
They not only show us all a real large conspiracy.
But they show us that those involved KNEW they were not following their own rules.
They knew that what they were doing was wrong, and they did it anyway.
What occured was much like what occured in Nazi Germany.
Those on the left were certain of the truth of their own values,
but only a few were willing to allow the ends to justify the means.
And those few lead the rest along.
The difference between silencing peoples voice and silencing their lives is just one of degree.
What was done was WRONG.
What YOU did was wrong.
Even if you merely sat idly by.
Though today – YOU are an apologist for evil.
Lying to people is evil.
Silencing others is evil.
Silencing the Truth is Evil.
Silencing those who speak the truth is evil.
Atleast you are atleast admitting that you are using FORCE.
Social Media did NOT follow their own rules.
Presumably you know what a bait and switch is, and that it is fraud.
‘Twiter is the free-speech wing of the free-speech party’
Jack Dorsey
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/mar/22/twitter-tony-wang-free-speech
When you agree to a contract – and Twitter’s TOS is a contract, that binds both parties.
Twitter was bound to follow its OWN TOS.
It did not.
You keep ignoring that. All throughout the Twitter files is the admissions from those within Twitter that they are violating their own rules.
“This is not some sinister plot or agenda from the left, or liberals, or socialists.”
Of course it is, and you have yet to even try to argue otherwise.
The core of your argument is that because massive censorship and suppression of the truth was accomplished through the cooperative efforts of the FBI, DHS, CIA, Biden Campaign, Democrats, Media, and Social Media that it is therefore legal.
The NAZI’s broke no laws. Please spare me the “it was legal” nonsense.
Successfully gaming the first amendment is not something you should be proud of.
It is a dark moment in this countries history.
Badgering Musk or Taibbi or Weiss for proving what most of us already knew about you and your ilk is unforgivable.
You are taking one of the most shameful moments in Republican and american history and proving that you can behave more shameful.
https://youtu.be/svUyYzzv6VI
John, be careful of the spin by PBS. Spin is easy, but the entire proceeding shows a different story.
I have grown tired of the idiotic faux legalistic arguments from the left on this.
This was inarguably immoral.
I am not especially interested in bad “If I stand on only my left foot, spin counter clockwise with my eyes closed, I get one free murder” argument.
“This was inarguably immoral.”
I am not sure what you are saying is immoral.
The conspiracy to censor silence the truth and truth speakers and to rig the 2020 election. was immoral
Svelaz’s histrionic efforts to defend it are humerous and immoral.
I am sorry, I should have been clearer, the post was a reply to Svelaz – I thought. Regardless, it is normally my intention that my posts can be understood stand alone without having to look at the thread. I failed.
“ The core of your argument is that because massive censorship and suppression of the truth was accomplished through the cooperative efforts of the FBI, DHS, CIA, Biden Campaign, Democrats, Media, and Social Media that it is therefore legal.”
Wrong, This was NOT a cooperative effort to censor and suppress the truth. Your paranoia is your biggest problem. All you are doing is jumping to conclusions and making assumptions based on that paranoid delusion you have that all of the left is somehow evil and vile because they are the left.
For that delusion to make sense you have to cherry pick your legal arguments and twist definitions to fit the preconceptions that are borne from your paranoia. You’re pretty deep into that silo, that much is obvious.
“ Successfully gaming the first amendment is not something you should be proud of.
It is a dark moment in this countries history.”
EVERYBODY games the system. Even you or any other libertarian. That’s just reality. Nobody is saying it’s supposed to be fair, moral or just. Republicans have exploited this reality for decades and yes, democrats have too. I make no excuses for that. What you are not wiling to acknowledge or face is that reality is harsh and unfair. A lot of what you complain about the left doing they learned it from the right when THEY were doing it. Nobody is innocent here.
Badgering Musk, Taibbi and the others IS fair game when they put themselves the positron to be badgered, mocked, ridiculed, and held accountable for their hypocrisy. THAT is part of what free speech brings. It doesn’t protect anyone from it. Conservatives and these “free speech absolutists” are crying foul over this inconvenient truth regarding the exercise of free speech. it doesn’t protect you from the response and consequences that comes with it. They want to absolve themselves of that effect by ignoring the responsibility that comes with exercising it.
“Wrong, This was NOT a cooperative effort to censor and suppress the truth.”
You are correct, it actually was top down directed by government. Communications were almost entirely ONE way.
With government saying “censor this” and Social Media saying “yes, sir”. therefore absolutely a violation of the first amendment.
The claim that it was a “cooperative effort” – is rephrasing YOUR argument.
There really are only two possibilities – and the “cooperative effort argument” is YOUR argument.
“EVERYBODY games the system. Even you or any other libertarian. That’s just reality. ”
Nope. Most of the attacks I receive here – especially from republicans are that I will NOT game the system.
“What you are not wiling to acknowledge or face is that reality is harsh and unfair”
That is correct. and that is why ideolgoies rooted in equality FAIL.
Because there is no equality.
But morality does exist. Humans are the only creatures with free will.
Free will and morality are inseparable.
For the Wolf – the ends justifies the means. That is true of all of nature, reality – EXCEPT HUMANS.
It is Only Humans that have free will it is only humans that can get past “the ends justifies the means”.
Murder is only wrong for Humans. The ends justifies the means is only wrong for humans.
Are you Human ?
If so, you are expected to behave MORALLY – and that means REJECTING “the ends justifies the means”
It means that other humans expect that you will NOT, lie, cheat, or steal to get what you want.
And that if you do you are cast out from moral society – often in prison.
Only Humans have RIGHTS.
Violating the rights of others is only wrong for HUMANS.
YOU have violated the rights of others. That is immoral.
You talk of gaming the system, it is not merely gaming the system when you violate the rights of others.
It is not merely gaming the system when you destroy truth.
It is evil
Only humans can be evil, because only humans have free will and therefore can make moral choices.
One of the fascinating aspects of dealing with left wing nuts like you is that so often the discuss deveolves to the millenia old fundimentals of civilization and society – which those on the left are blissfully ignorant of and do not grasp are necesscary and still binding.
It should not be necessary in any conversation today to mention much less debate free will. It should not be necescary in conversation today to mentions much less debate fundamental morality.
You rant about Trump lying. You rant about hypocracy. You condemn those you disagree with for their real or imagined moral sins.
But when confronted starkly with your own egregiously immoral conduct – the retort is reality is not fair.
Reality is not fair – that is correct. But humans have free will and that makes them creatures who make moral choices.
It means they are capable of good or evil.
It means they are subject to judgement – by god if you beleive, and by their fellow man, even if you do not, for the morality of their actions.
YOU lied. you Silenced the Truth, you silenced those who tried to speak the truth. That is immoral. That is evil.
That is a violation of the free will of others.
You not only did evil to those you silenced, you did evil to all those who were deprived of the truth.
The fundimental disinction between humans and all other creatures is that “the ends does NOT justify the means”
You are free to judge Musk, Taibii, myself and others.
And you will be judged on your own judgement, and you have, and been found wanting.
You are a pathetic creature, you have surrendered your humanity – for that is what it means to abandon morality and justify the means by the ends. To be human is to know that you are subject to morality.
So long as the consequences that come from free speech are NOT the use of FORCE – I agree with you.
If you do not like what I say – and you call me a racist – that is perfectly fine. Your judgement of me, is also a judgement of you.
If you call me a racist and I am not – that is a moral failing on your part, one that atleast some will recognize.
But if you censor me, if you silence me – those are uses of FORCE, and they are inherently immoral.
The morality of your actions does not depend on the truth of my words – though the egregiousness of your conduct does.
Censoring error is wrong. Silencing truth is worse.
“But if you censor me, if you silence me – those are uses of FORCE, and they are inherently immoral.” Forgive me, John, if I’m speaking out of turn…Silencing someone/anyone also denies everyone else the opportunity to determine if they are being truthful or less than so, but it’s still their right to listen – even to the, let’s call them ‘less than truthful’ – if they desire. And it’s still their right to make up their own mind to believe the speaker, or not. Why Leftists can’t fathom those rights, like all rights, go both ways, is just another one of those things that makes you go, “Hmmm…” Again, you’re doing yeoman’s duty by engaging these people. You certainly have more patience for their pettiness and childish behavior than I. Well done, sir.
Thank you.
And yes you are correct.
Heterodox academy has done an excellent job of updating John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” the portions specific to free speech
and providing it for free in “All Minus One”.
I am doing nothing but repeating the wisdom of Mill from nearly 200 years ago.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/All-Minus-One-2nd-Edition-PDF.pdf
I would point out that it is the Wisdom of Mill, and Smith and Locke and Bastiat, and Aquinas, and Milton and ……
That the left seeks to destroy.
Absolutely we should take wisdom wherever we find it – confusious, Sidartha, …
But we should not toss that of of the scottish enlightenment or the west more generally, because it is the work of white men.
Mill credits the brilliance of his work to his wife.
I would strongly suggest that you need a decent course in ethics, not just what is ethics and morailty, but the history of modern ethics and morality.
How did we come to decide that lying was immoral.
How did we come to decide free speech is a right.
Though the ignorance of the left is so incredible that maybe you need to go further.
How did we decide that physics and mathematics were not social constructs.
This nonsense that everything is a social construct is a pervasive idiocy of the left.
Physics is not a social construct.
Math is not a social construct.
Sex is not a social construct.
race is not a social construct
Morality actually is a social construct – and Ancient one that we have spent 150,000 years trying to get right and that pretending you can change at whim without absolutely disasterous consequences is folly.
The left bandies “social construct” arround as if the fact that Some things – like morality are social constructs mean they have no power or significance.
Morality is a social construct – on that is foundational to society as it exists. Alter morality and you alter society. Do so without great care and society collapses.
Free will is not a social construct – but nearly everything that flows from it is.
Free will literally means Humans are free to work out how to construct society.
Social constructs are literally the foundations of society.
If you tamper with them – society changes. In many cases collapses.
It is possible that some changes to social constructs are good changes to society.
Self government is a social construct,
Constitutions are a social construct,
Individual liberty is a fundamental social construct.
Tamper with these and you could easily cause modern society to fail.
Those of you on the left do not seem to grasp any of this.
Svelaz, You, your party, your ideology, the Press, Social Media, and many institutions of our government have been caught in a massive ends justifies the means lie, and extensive immoral acts.
This destroys trust, and whether you like it or not, trust is absolutely critical to society.
If you can not be trusted to act morally, society does not work.
Govenrment itself only exists because a small portion of people will not act morally absent the use of force.
The social contract – the moral foundation of government is surrendering our individual right to initiate force against others, in return for government protecting and punishing those who initiate force against us.
The purpose of government is to protect us from those who will not act morally without the threat of force.
You have made clear – that you are prepared to act immorally for your own power.
That you will “game the system” to obtain power.
You do not seem to grasp you are more than “gaming the system” – you are damaging the foundations.
Government itself rests on the trust of the governed. Without that trust everything becomes unstable.
The growing divide in this country – the increasing bitterness in our politics, the rising violence, the increasing suicides, the increasing drug overdoses, these are all symptoms of increasing chaos, and growing distrust.
That is the LEFT’s fault.
I would note that is ALWAYS the case.
The right – or atleast the american conservative right is NOT “progressive”.
Any change they look for is either a reversion to the past or towards limited government.
Those are highly unlikely to cause instability and chaos.
Instability and chaos are ALWAYS the result of progressive change – NEW changes.
SOMETIMES progressive changes result in brief instability and then settle on a new stable norm.
When they do not, that is failure. That is what we are seeing now.
It is possible implement progressive changes that are unstable without failure – but that requires FORCE.
That is what we see in Socialist countries. This is also why the standard of living is lower,
because FORCE is an additional cost.
This is not the ONLY problem with bigger government.
“The Nazis broke no laws?” Are you serious, man?
Did you think the Beer Hall Putsch, the failed coup in 1923, in which 2,000 Nazis marched on Feldherrnhalle, which resulted in the deaths of 4 police officers, was LEGAL?
Hitler was arrested and charged with treason. He was sentenced to 5 years in Landsberg prison, but only served 9 months.
Then, after WWII, the Nuremberg trials put the Nazis on trail for violations of international law. 24 leaders of the Third Reich were charged with war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and conspiracy.
These are probably the most obvious examples, but there are plenty more. Please think about the sweeping arguments you write.
After the Putsch. Hilter ascended to power legally.
What he learned in prison after the Putsch was that he could use democracy against itself.
Which he did successfully.
No Nuremberg did not find Hitler and cronies guilty of violating international law.
There is no such thing. There certainly was not in 1945.
They find the Nazi’s guilty of “crimes against humanity”
Essentially they found them guilty of being immoral, not illegal.
And that is PRECISELY what we are dealing with regarding What Musk has exposed at Twitter.
It is ALSO at the core of the NY Post story.
We can and should have a debate over whether the top down one way censorship regime that went from offices of Govenrment, and the democratic party to Social Media is illegal. I beleive there is more than enough evidence that it actually is.
But it is unarguably immoral. It is “crimes against humanity”
I do not know whether a thorough investigation of Joe Biden’s financial dealings will reveal illegality. I beleive it will.
But it has already exposed that Joe Biden is immoral and corrupt.
Again – The Nazi’s did not break the law. It may turn out that the left has not broken any laws.
Right now there are only two significant differences between today’s left and the Nazi’s.
The first is that the left is not nationalist. Fascism is not inherently nationalist, but German and Italian fascism were nationalist and that is one attribute that distinguishes them from other forms of socialism. But make no mistake fascism is a form of socialism.
The other difference is that today’s left in the US has not yet graduated to genocide.
I would note that Hitler become Chancellor in 1932. The Final Solution – Genocide did not start until the invasion of the USSR in June 1941.
Almost a decade later.
Freedom is surrendered by degrees, often peacefully, the worst consequences are often years later.
What is self evident and certainly evidenced by the shenanigans exposed by the twitter files – which are note really about Twitter, but about the immorality of a large portion of those with power within the left.