Google, Facebook and the rest wield more power than most governments. My latest in FrontPage:
The secular Left and the proponents of Islamic blasphemy laws have a new issue on which they are making common cause: the quest to destroy the freedom of speech, the cornerstone of our democracy. After Charlottesville, the Left sees its chance to crush all dissent, and given its alliance with Islamic supremacists, this means the implementation in the West of prohibitions on criticism of Islam, including counterterror analysis of the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists. This anti-free speech initiative, if it succeeds, will destroy free society, which cannot exist if one is unable to speak out against the tyrant.
The Left is trying to use Charlottesville as its Reichstag Fire moment to try to crush all dissent. CNN gave the Southern Poverty Law Center’s spurious “hate group” list wide play, and an effort has begun to deny all platforms to those “hate groups,” without any regard for the fact that the SPLC includes legitimate organizations that dissent from the Leftist agenda (including the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Jihad Watch) on the list along with the KKK and neo-Nazis, in an attempt to defame and destroy the legitimate groups.
Spearheading anti-free speech efforts on the Islamic side is a little-known organization that comprises most of the Muslim governments around the world today: the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is made up of fifty-six member nations plus the Palestinian Authority and constitutes the largest voting bloc at the United Nations. The OIC has been working for years to try to compel the West to restrict the freedom of speech, and particularly the freedom to criticize Islam.
Essentially, they want to impose a key principle of Sharia — which forbids blasphemy against Allah, Muhammad, and Islam — on the entire non-Muslim world. They are advancing this initiative by trying to compel the West to criminalize “incitement to religious hatred,” which essentially means criticism of Islam; no international body has ever objected to criticism of Judaism, Christianity, or any other religion.
Aiding this OIC initiative has been the popularization of the term “Islamophobia.” Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former imam, writes that “this loathsome term is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.” Islamic groups tied to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, most notably the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have for years been wielding this term like a club to smear anyone who speaks honestly about the jihad threat; by doing so, they have intimidated many into silence.
The SPLC has eagerly taken up this term as a key element of its censorship strategy, publishing lists of key “Islamophobes” (including David Horowitz and me) that have grown so absurd that they even include a reformist Muslim, Maajid Nawaz. Nawaz and his associates are themselves not above using similar tactics, but his presence on the SPLC’s list does highlight its absurdity.
The anti-free speech initiative is also proceeding even aside from the SPLC’s hate group list. Canadian psychologist and social critic Jordan Peterson recently had his Google account revoked, without explanation, and then restored without explanation. “Maybe it was just an error,” Peterson told Tucker Carlson, “but the fact that things have been happening in such a strange way politically brings up the specter of censorship.”
And Google has been engaging in censorship. The establishment media in the West completely ignored the story, but Turkey’s Anadolu Agency reported several weeks ago that “Google’s first page results for searches of terms such as ‘jihad’, ‘shariah’ and ‘taqiyya’ now return mostly reputable explanations of the Islamic concepts. Taqiyya, which describes the circumstances under which a Muslim can conceal their belief in the face of persecution, is the sole term to feature a questionable website on the first page of results.”
“Reputable” according to whom? “Questionable” according to whom? Google is bowing to pressure from Muslims such as Texas imam Omar Suleiman, who is mentioned in the Anadolu story as the driving force behind this initiative, without considering whether those who are demanding that the search results be skewed in a particular direction might have an ulterior motive. Could it be that those who are pressuring Google want to conceal certain truths about Islam that they would prefer that non-Muslims not know?
This is a real possibility, but of course Google executives would have to study Islam themselves in order to determine whether or not these Muslims who are pressuring them are misleading them, and that’s not going to happen. Still, they could have done a bit more due diligence, and made some efforts to determine whether those being tarred as “hate groups” really deserved the label, whether the Southern Poverty Law Center was really a reliable and objective arbiter of which groups were and weren’t “hate groups,” and whether the information that Google was suppressing was really inaccurate. Instead, Google seems to have swallowed uncritically everything Omar Suleiman and the others said, and applied it as policy.
Meanwhile, Facebook’s Vice President Joel Kaplan traveled to Pakistan in July to assure the Pakistani government that it would remove “anti-Islam” material. That endeavor had already started before Kaplan’s trip. In mid-February, traffic to Jihad Watch from Facebook dropped suddenly by 90% and has never recovered. We do not post any hateful or provocative material and neither incite nor approve of violence, but Facebook is acting as judge, jury and executioner in all this. There is no appeal and no recourse.
A high-placed source in the tech industry told me: “Countries like Pakistan basically tell Facebook and Google that they either comply or the government will arrest all their employees in the country and make it illegal to use their produce. So, FB and Google are faced with either leaving the country or complying. Google famously refused to comply with the Chinese government’s censorship policies and withdrew from China at great cost to Google. Facebook is obviously less principled. By the way, this is a growing phenomenon with more and more countries moving to censor US tech companies (plus there’s been a recent vigorous campaign from the left demanding censorship in the US). They won’t cave to domestic pressures, because it makes no business sense. They will cave to foreign pressure in foreign countries, because it makes business sense.”
In his interview of Jordan Peterson, Carlson asked what governments should do with companies such as Google that are more powerful than the government itself. Peterson answered: “I’m not sure the government knows what to do.” Susan Benesch, director of the Dangerous Speech Project, said in July: “Facebook is regulating more human speech than any government does now or ever has.”
So what is to be done? In other industries the government has used anti-trust laws when free markets are threatened. Here the free marketplace of ideas is threatened. Should the anti-trust laws be invoked to break up Google and Facebook?
mortimer says
Yes. Demand your representatives enforce the anti-trust, anti-monopoly laws against Google, Facebook and twitter. There should be competition that will keep everyone honest and stop these companies from helping the enemies of democracy and free speech to destroy democracy and free speech.
Shane says
mortimer, here is something that you can do – Sign the Petition To Demand Congress Regulates Google Like A Utility: http://petitionstocongress.org/sign-the-petition-to-demand-congress-regulates-google-like-a-utility/ Do not forget YouTube, a Google subsidiary, which is demonetizing non-liberal commentators.
mahayashi says
Each one of those social media giants was begun with TAXPAYER money under the auspices of DARPA, NSA, CIA as surveillance platforms. They are posing as private entities but never were. That is why criminals such as google- the lightning rod prototype for all the others- are never prosecuted by the govt. They ARE the govt- or pseudo govt like the IRS & Fed Reserve
Alvin J Wolf Jr says
Using anti-trust laws to stop public discourse control by anyone using public airwaves is an idea past due. The gift of mass communication, 21st century style, has reached its evil stage and that evil needs to be recognized and corrected. Is there someone out there with the resources to compete with existing monopolies? Truth will prevail regardless of attempts to turn something good into evil.
James says
Surely this is a predictable consequence of the USA’s devotion to capitalism. There is nothing sinister in it. Given that devotion, and capitalism, and cyberspace, and social media, businesses as powerful as Google or Facebook are exactly what one will get. In no way is it surprising that businesses of this kind, with this wealth, influence and power, should want to promote cause X than cause Y – this is no more surprising than that others have causes that they wish to promote.
People cannot glorify capitalism as long as it brings results they approve of, and then cry foul when it brings results to which they object – that is how 4-year olds behave. If they approve of capitalism, they must take the rough with the smooth, the results they object to as well as the ones that they approve of. The wonder is that anyone is surprised that certain very powerful, very wealthy social media businesses take the positions they do, or adopt the policies they do.
When all is said and done, what really matters to businesses is the making of money, lots of it – if that means that human rights count for nothing, then so be it. Social media businesses are businesses – that is, money-making concerns. To censor talk that prevents or imperils the further making of money, is an entirely reasonable course of action – it is entirely predictable. Only someone very naive would imagine that businesses that wish to appeal to Muslim clients & Muslim countries would avoid censoring anti-Muslim sites, & anti-Muslim comments. Only a fool would avoid censoring anti-Muslim comments if he (and his shareholders) wanted to make money from Muslim governments with which the US had found it advantageous to make an alliance. Anti-Muslim comments are bad for Facebook’s business – therefore, they are not welcome. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with any of this; morality is bad for business.
One is not defending Facebook – simply pointing out that its measures against “Islamophobia” are totally unsurprising, given certain well-known features of US culture.
john spielman says
in one word -YES or make it a crime to violate free speech law by anyone or any corporation such as facebook Google twitter etc! but anyone who actively threatens harm -by himself or by others ( other than God and His holy angels)) should be fully prosecuted under the law
of the land which makes it illegal to counsel others to commit a felony!
Emilie Green says
We should allow these companies, which effectively are as much public accommodations as Ollies Barbecue ever was, to strip us of the very freedoms that we intentionally prevented government from ever doing?
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).
In very well may be necessary to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include viewpoint discrimination among public accommodations.
HadEnough says
The reasoning for an anti-trust case makes sense to me. Now all we need is a sharp lawyer to take on the challenge.
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer: Should Anti-trust Laws Be Used to Break Up the Social Media Giants?
……………….
I’m not sure how much it would help…
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/07/28/report-steve-bannon-wants-google-facebook-to-be-regulated-like-utilities/
Guest says
It greatly pains me to say this, but I am a republican. The constitution the government cannot interfere with free speech and it cannot try to control private businesses. What Facebook and Hoogle are doing is wrong, but by the constitution, not illegal. And anti-trust laws are against the constitution.
The point to the constitution is so that power will belong to the people not the government. Do you know why the republicans were against passing the law about gay marriage? It wasn’t because they were against gay people getting married. If you read the constitution you would no there was no law about marriage. Meaning there was no law forbiddening gay marriage. Even if this time it was yes. People chose to give the government power and tell them who they can marry, and one day they may use that same power to tell you, ‘no, you can’t marry this person.’ Because we gave them the power to use the law to control marriage.
Even if anti-trust laws look like a good idea now. They can be used against the people they’re supposed to protect.
There was nothing wrong with the constitution when it was first signed, there nothing that forbade gay marriage, nothing that forbade any type of citizens to vote. I admit slavery being banned was something that was needed. Because the constitution was meant to give all American citizens the right to choose. That means what you say say and what you choose to believe in, but more importantly the right to live.
They may protect our borders and manage law but the government doesn’t own us. And they certainly can’t tell us how to run our business. Say whatever you want. It won’t change my mind, or make me think I am wrong.
Read Atlas Shrugged in your free time, and you will see what the Republicans are trying to protect us from
gravenimage says
Yes–I could see anti-trust laws used against us, as well.
mahayashi says
the social media cartel are all GOVT ORGANIZATIONS dba private entities. Like IRS, Fed Reserve etc. They are govt agencies functioning as unacknowledged govt CONTRACTORs,
Tater Salad says
I do believe there is something in the Constitution about treason and sedition. Islam is just plain sedition since its open goal is the destruction of our Constitution to replace it with sharia law. Muslims, whose first and foremost holy duty is advancing the imposition of worldwide sharia law, are bound by islamic mandate to expend every effort to destroy our Constitution and are therefore traitors by defninition. I do think it is most certainly constitutional to prevent a seditious ideology and the traitors who follow it from limiting our right to free speech to speak out against them, especially when many of the entities attempting to eliminate our right to free speech are foreign governments.
Valkyrie Ziege says
; “Hoogle”? Is that from the “How the Grinch Stole Christmas!”?
Lydia says
Yes! Great move Robert!
: D
That is totally what is happening.
But again, it is a well orchestrated plot and the network is deep, wide, and enormous.
All you can do is try.
Like with the holocaust sort of thing, logic, reason, and rational thinking, critical thinking, research of the truth and all the like are suffocated and suddenly ‘good is evil and evil is good’ is the new thought and speech and deed police.
But those like me will march on with truth and reason in the good and the light.
No matter what.
Come tyranny, oppression, persecution, hail, sleet, snow, or blizzard, the light of goodness and truth must blaze on!
(insert inspiring speech drum beats here)
( ;
Keep marching on!
PATRICIA FRANCES KOENIG says
Anti-trust laws should be used to break up a lot of over-large corporations. President Reagan stopped enforcing anti-trust laws…then President Clinton’s administration had them repealed by Congress….because they were not being enforced. What a scam! Overly-large corporations act to interfere with free trade and cause prices to go up and wages to go down….do to lack of competition for products and labor.
Rob says
Yes of course they should but the evil powers that be control our law makers.
Jacqueleen says
In my experience with Google, gmail, etc., they are already filtering our mail, our comments, our sites, our selection of articles, etc….We cannot get through to those things that Google does not want us to see. They should be prosecuted. As for Facebook, I never joined Facebook or any other social network for that matter and I never will. Google and Facebook would do well in China….BUT NOT IN THE USA….Please stop them from their anti-American ideology.
joe says
Yes, every legal instrument available should be used to prevent the monopoly of public opinion being acquired by Google, Facebook and others.
If anti-trust law can be used in this way, well and good. Unfortunately, anti-trust law was not written for this specific purpose.
I believe we need new law, say Defense Against Speech Control, which would be like anti-trust law but its purpose is specifically to defend free speech against monopolies.
Skai says
I don’t understand why we need new laws. Aren’t Google and Facebook violating our constitutional right to free speech? If it were happening to just a minority group wouldn’t the ACLU jump in and file suit against them? Does the constitution only protect minorities or was it written for all people. I don’t understand why some attorney has filed a class action against them.
Skai says
I mean “hasn’t” filed a class action
gravenimage says
Skai wrote:
I don’t understand why we need new laws. Aren’t Google and Facebook violating our constitutional right to free speech?
…………………
Google and Facebook are private companies–not a public space.
Skai says
So because they are a private company they can say anything they want but deny others the same right. I understand. Like Antifa. I already avoid doing searches on Google (I use Duck Duck Go) and now I think I will delete my Facebook account. That’s the only thing we can do that they will understand.
UNCLE VLADDI says
HELL, YES!
I just got an “It’s Our Way, Or The Highway!” email letter from them today! Here it is:
“Update to the Twitter Terms of Service
We’re updating our Terms of Service on 2 October 2017. With these changes users will be better able to understand when Twitter may remove content on Twitter. Additionally, we wanted to make our Limitations of Liability provision easier to understand.
Please note, that if you do not agree with these changes, you should feel free to deactivate your account at any time. Information about how to deactivate your account can be found on our Help Center.
Thank you,
Twitter”
SO WHATEVER THEY’RE PLANNING, IT SEEMS THEY ANTICIPATE A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE’S FIRST REACTION WILL BE TO HATE IT AND TO WANT TO TOTALLY DEACTIVATE THEIR ACCOUNTS!
People say the American Constitution’s First Amendment only protects individual citizens (and corporations) from the government, but that private companies can enforce whatever rules they want to within their own domains.
But … hey, guess what! NOT when their rules amount to CRIMES (say, of slander)!
See, whenever FASCBOOK (And Twatter and ScrewYouRube, and GO-OGLE et al) humiliates people in public by censoring them and posting (slanderous, libelous) warnings, they are actually breaking the LAW.
Slander (and it’s written form, libel) are sub-categories of criminal FRAUD.
Further, if (as can be easily demonstrated in these cases) they committed their fraudulent, defamatory slanders and libels as part of an orchestrated conspiracy to suppress and destroy evidence of the crimes of the holy-mobster “muslim” gang members of the world’s oldest and largest ongoing extortion racket and crime-syndicate (“ISLAM”) then they are also guilty of endorsing those same crimes (many of which amount to mass-murders, if not to actual genocide) and since islam itself is openly hostile to any and all sovereign nations (which it regards as temporary and man-made false idols, all of which are to be eventually destroyed and replaced with their own one-world muslim Ummah Nation, to be ruled over by their global theocratic caliphate government) it is also a clear case of sedition and treason, of aiding and abetting an existential threat to the United States and Western world in general.
Zuckerturd and his globalist minions should be arrested indicted tried convicted jailed and possibly executed for their treason to rationality and civilization and their ongoing crimes against humanity.
Andy says
Short answer to this is YES!!
The great Dr.Michael Savage has also mentioned this topic on numerous radio shows where he has said (I’m paraphrasing) that the monopoly of these corporations should be busted up.
Andy says
Is Google A Monopoly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7KiGxZlmeE
Schrödinger says
Yes, is the short answer. Some, including several commenting on this and related articles, argue there should be no such government intervention, nor any government role restricting any form of speech. However there already are and indeed must be certain restrictions circumscribing just what may be said and when: just as one isn’t permitted to shout “Fire” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire — neither must there be any law preventing people being so alerted when there is.
It’s notable, regarding one of these Big Bro tech leviathans, that not only has the CEO of Apple, an openly gay man, made the appalling decision to donate 2 million dollars to the vicious stealth jihad smear factory the SPLC to “fight hate”, he further promoted Groupthink in sending an email to all company employees explaining his reasons and urging they do likewise, guaranteeing he’ll personally match their own donations dollar for dollar. Bravo Apple. It also proudly made known it blocked use of its Apple Pay system for a number of entities it deemed “Hate groups”. Some of those do, perhaps, legitimately meet that designation in the eyes of many. However this highlights everyone’s vulnerability in the looming Brave New World of a cashless economy with no alternative to e-banking.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/read-apple-ceo-tim-cooks-email-to-employees-about?utm_term=.ipK2oEYL9D#.rggvMKY16y
Also egregiously flawed are their “Values” in respect of “Inclusion & Diversity”; “At Apple, we take a holistic view of diversity that looks beyond the usual measurements.” they opine, “We see diversity as everything that makes an employee who they are. We foster a diverse culture that’s inclusive of disability, religious belief, sexual orientation, and service to country. We want all employees to be comfortable” even boasting “We’re continuing our advocacy for LGBTQ equality” and ”Our Diversity Network Associations (DNAs) …. are groups where employees can make connections that create trust and a feeling of belonging.” One such little group is the Apple Muslim Association. How cute. The commitment to Dhimmitude and Islamic supremacy even permeates Apple’s DNA.
If based solely upon historical record, one may quibble about several religion’s complete compatibility with this stated set of values. However in their modern incarnation, really in terms of their very theology, all religions are compatible. All but one, that is. Islam’s immutable goal, it’s dark abyss of “Inclusion & Diversity” is that of a hideous monoculture where “all belief is for Allah”, with everyone, every surviving slave of Allah (ie. not yet hurled from a high building, stoned to death or put to the sword etc) forever under the barbaric jackboot of Sharia. This glaring internal inconsistency and contradiction isn’t something any entity with the collective resources and ability a company such as Apple ought be unaware of. Evidently, they’ve opted for the easier, compromised coward’s approach.
Apple’s bright young things are well paid to constantly improve its clever devices and their nifty OS. Imagine if they were directed to devote just a fraction of that effort to “bug fixes and stability improvements” for the company’s critically flawed “Inclusion and Diversity Values”. Fixing those glaring contradictions though will require much more than a software update — it really requires an entirely new “Values” operating system.
Sent from my iPad