When the freedom of speech is entirely a dead letter, those who were supposed to be its guardians will congratulate themselves for never having been “racist.”
“Deplatformed: How Big Tech Companies & Corporate America Subvert the Second Amendment,” by Sam Jacobs, Ammo.com, January 26, 2020:
…Big Tech’s War on Free Speech
There is a war against free speech and Big Tech is the one waging it. Congress has looked into this, with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas leading the charge, not allowing Facebook and other Big Tech companies to weasel out of answering hard questions that the public has about censorship on the Internet.
It’s less true to say that Facebook, Google and other Big Tech platforms “lean left” than it is to say that they push a globalist, neoliberal, corporatist line that eschews any sort of values or ethics other than growth. Edward Abbey has said that the philosophy of growth for the sake of growth is also the philosophy of the cancer cell.
The Big Tech war against free speech is nothing new and there have been canaries in the coal mine for years. Everyone remembers MILO being shown the door on Twitter for a dubious accusation that he led a mob against actress Leslie Jones. But the real test case was not him, it was hacker and troll Andrew Auernheimer, commonly known by his handle “weev.”
weev (always lowercase) is difficult to defend because he has unpopular viewpoints. To wit, he has a large swastika tattooed on his chest. However, proponents of the First Amendment and free speech shouldn’t be concerned with what weev thinks or says, because what he thinks or says is irrelevant to whether or not he has the right to think it and say it. But Twitter and other Big Tech platforms were smart in choosing such an ideological pariah to test the waters.
There is a direct line to be drawn from the deplatforming of weev on Twitter to the unpersoning of Alex Jones to the shadow banning and outright deplatforming of conservative voices all across the web. Mainstream, establishment conservatives have done themselves a disservice by attempting to defend themselves against deplatforming on the basis that “I’m not a Nazi” for two reasons.
First, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Nazi or not. All legal speech should be allowed on social media, or else Big Tech is an editorial content curator, which makes it liable for anything that is posted on there. This means that your ex-spouse lying about how you missed Little Timmy’s baseball game on Facebook can be construed as defamation, for which Facebook is liable because they didn’t remove the status update. Facebook’s pretense that it is a content-neutral platform, a claim that is patently false, is what protects it from being sued every time someone lies about someone else on the platform or from being hauled into court every time that ISIS uses WhatsApp to coordinate an attack.
But the other reason is that for many on the left, there is not a tangible difference between weev, MILO, Alex Jones, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Wayne LaPierre, Ted Cruz, Ben Sharpiro or the President of the United States. Anyone to the right of John McCain is seen as either a literal fascist, a fascist apologist, or a gatekeeper who opens the door to fascist ideology.
Big Tech will not stop at deplatforming actual, self-avowed fascists, nor will it stop at conspiracy theorists, edgy conservatives, or even “respectable” centrist types like Dave Rubin. To throw the far right under the bus in the hopes of satisfying Big Tech’s blood lust is a strategic mistake – it legitimizes the entire process of deplatforming, which will eventually swallow up anyone who believes in the Constitution and the rule of law. Big Tech and the left either see no difference between you and a Nazi, or pretend not to because it’s politically expedient.
This is doubly important because of how many Big Tech companies are actively spying on their users. The EFF maintains an annual detailed list of who is telling the government about its users and their data, who informs users that the government is sniffing around about them, and who even bothers to disclose their data retention policies.
What this means is that if and when the federal government begins compiling a list of “potential right-wing terrorists” or “right-wing extremists” (to the extent that they do not already maintain such lists), they will have a ready-made mine of data from Big Tech, who have shown themselves to be more than willing to cooperate with the federal government, with minimal or no arm-twisting on the part of the feds. Take, for example, the Philadelphia synagogue shooter. Self-proclaimed “free speech” platform Gab was more than willing to hand over all the data they had about his account to the feds without even being asked.
Sure, no one wants to be in the position of defending a synagogue shooter. But the point is that these platforms, even the ones who allegedly have your back, have shown themselves willing to roll on their users provided enough of a fever is whipped up in the press.
Conservatives Censored on Social Media
It’s worth showing just how many mainstream, run-of-the-mill conservatives have been censored by Big Tech – it’s not just the MILOs and the weevs of the world who are being shown the door. Indeed, we believe that these types are censored not out of any actual desire to suppress so-called “hate speech,” but instead to act as a test case for setting the precedent for suppressing legal speech. Here are some examples that are worth considering:
- Pastor Rich Penkoski: This pastor runs a popular Facebook page, “Warriors for Christ.” He was suspended mid-sermon for criticizing the rainbow flag. He was previously banned for calling an atheist a liar and sharing verses from the Quran that called for the killing of non-Muslims.
- Over Two Dozen Catholic Pages: In July 2017, Facebook banned several Catholic pages with millions of followers. Most were based in Brazil. Facebook removed the pages without explanation.
- Rep. Marsha Blackburn: Not even elected officials are immune from social media deplatforming. Facebook removed an ad for Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s campaign that attacked pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood.
- Alveda King: Facebook removed paid ads from Martin Luther King’s niece Alveda King for her documentary on Roe v. Wade.
- Ryan T. Anderson: Twitter refused to run several ads from Christian radio stations for an upcoming interview with Ryan T. Anderson. Anderson is a critic of transgenderism and radical gender ideology.
- Robert Spencer: The head of JihadWatch.org, a website covering radical Islam, was removed from social media and even had his credit cards canceled. He also claims that Google buries him in results for searches about “jihad.”
- Brian Fisher: The President of the Human Coalition notes that this anti-abortion group has had prayer apps removed from the Apple store and has had its content repeatedly removed from Twitter despite taking pains to ensure that all of it is within Twitter’s narrow, anti-First Amendment guidelines.
- PragerU: PragerU is very much the picture of mainstream, run-of-the-mill, completely non-edgy conservatism on the Internet. Despite this, they repeatedly have their content removed from YouTube. Dennis Prager, head of PragerU, is suing YouTube. He notes that Delta Air Lines couldn’t say “conservatives can’t fly with us,” but YouTube, ostensibly a neutral platform, is effectively allowed to say that conservatives can’t use their services.
- David Kyle Foster: David Kyle Foster is a leader in the “ex-gay” movement, a group of Christians who claim that their religion has “cured” their homosexuality. His Vimeo channel, featuring over 700 personal testimonials, was pulled from Vimeo for being “hateful.”
Even the Declaration of Independence has been removed from Facebook as “hate speech” due to their “filtering program.” Yes, really. Nor is it only conservative groups who have been targeted. Moderates and leftists who don’t toe the party line – like Andy Ngo, Tim Pool and Michael Tracey – have likewise been targeted by deplatforming and shadowbanning.
Deplatforming is not limited to social media. Chase Bank has been accused of depriving conservative voices of banking services. This returns us to the Mark of the Beast notion: What good is free speech if banks – banks – can keep you from receiving payments. And how far off are we from seeing conservative voices deprived of their ability to pay?
Imagine showing up at the grocery store and finding out that your money’s no good because you have a concealed carry permit. Sound far-fetched? So would have having your bank account closed for being a conservative activist….
mortimer says
This very important article by Sam Jacobs, (Ammo.com) about the industrial commercialization of speech by BigTech giants should be widely shared and read by all.
Sam Jacobs makes a major point here: “Big Tech is an editorial content curator, which makes it liable for anything that is posted on there … which makes it liable for anything that is posted on there.”
Facebook and other forums hide behind the lie that they are content-neutral … if so, they have no right to censor. If they are censors, then they may be sued for libel just a newspapers and TV networks may be sued for libel.
I think an organization should be formed to take down Big Tech censorship. They should go after examples of Big Tech selectively censoring and then take it to the highest court, demanding the highest possible damages for libellous slander.
This will force the Big Tech either to stop censoring or lose their right to claim they are ‘content-neutral’.
As it is now, Big Tech is INDEED censoring on the basis of whether their online ‘product’ is something the mega-rich sponsors want to subsidize or not.
It is international industry that is deciding what must be censored online and what is permitted.
Bill Kilgore says
And what will happen?
Nothing
Will congress actually produce anything remotely useful to citizens free speech?
More hearings, more committees, more testimony and plenty of huff and puff and then *poof*…it all goes away.
Walter Sieruk says
Yes , yes and yes corporate companies will not tolerate freedom of speech when its come only to pro-US anti-jihad speech . As seen by Facebook which seems very infiltrated by pro-Islam ,pro jihad influence.
Nevertheless Facebook claims to be “objective ” That claim is nonsense and outright false false
On conservative talk radio , one night , a guest speaker had explained things well. He said “Facebook being a company has the legal right to remove and posting it wants to and ban anyone it wants to but Facebook corporate have no ethical right then to say that it’s ‘objective’. ”
For example this year , during this month of January Face book removed my post and put me on a thirty day ban for written about violent Muslim migrants who have entered Europe.
Last year , one of the times times I was put on thirty day ban and also had my post removed was then I posted an essay concerning the September 11, 2001 jihad mass murder attacks .
It contained no hate for Muslims and likewise condoned no violence them and only America to be knowledgeable and aware of the lying deception proclaimed by the many propagandists for Islam .
This following essay is this specific posting the Facebook viewed ad a “violation of its community standards.”
“There is a rather old song that was written way before the murderous jihad affronts which occurred on September 11, 2001. That many apply to this current late decade of this twenty–first century.
The title of that song to “Try to remember…”
Some of the lyrics to well apply to now are “Try to remember the kind of September when life was slow and ho, so mellow… Try to remember the kind of September when you were a tender and callow fellow…Try to remember the kind of September when life was tender that no one wept expect the willow… Try to remember the kind of September when love was a ember about to billow…”
Yes, that was the past it was pre- 9/11 Septembers before those Islamic terror murder attacks on that specific day.
Now viewing things as they are .Life is no longer slow of mellow. For all patriotic Americans need the be fast and keep up with news and information regarding Muslim terrorist activities. Now men can’t be so tender and callow. Men need to keep strong vigilance for things, items and individuals the appear suspicious and it’s no longer good be naive.
Likewise the lyrics of the song further went “Try to remember the kind of September when life was so tender that no one wept expect the willow…” Now many people have wept because of the heinously vicious murdering actions commit by Muslim terrorists. In addition, the old song lyrics further are “Try to remember the kind of September when love was an ember about to billow…” Now love instead of being and “ember about to billow” the sad and tragic reality is vicious hate by jihad-minded Muslims now pose a danger.
Nevertheless, people of the West need to reject hate as to not be of the same mindset as the jihadists are .
Therefore, don’t let them fool you, the many apologists for Islam is will endeavor to set up a smokescreen to hide the reality of the truth about the violence and deadly essence of Islam by making the bogus claim that the al Qaeda operatives mass murderer on 9/11 were not real Muslims and that they were breaking the laws of the Qu ‘ran by their violence and deadly actions.” The apologists for Islam will further make the totally false claim that “Those terrorists on 9/11 were only criminals who hijacked the peaceful religion of Islam for Politics.” Those outrageously false claims are weak attempt of damage control for the image of Islam to the West. For the “holy book” of Islam the Qu ‘ran. For the Qu ‘ran instruct in Sura 9:111. Muslims who are engaging the jihad that “The believer’s fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain ,they kill and are killed “ That’s just what happened on September 11, 2001 the jihadists of al Qaeda “killed and were killed” in those 9/11 jihad attacks against both humankind and America. The Quran also teaches in Sura 9:123 to that jihad –minded Muslims behavior towards non-Muslims “let them find harshness in you…” Those Islamic attacks on 9/11 were indeed very “harsh.” As Sura 2:191 instructs “kill the disbeliever wherever you find them.” That’s a very strange kind of “peaceful religion” if there ever was one. Just to site one more out on many from the Qu ‘ran about the instruction of deadly violence is Sura 47:4. Which instructs “Whenever you encounter unbelievers strike off their heads until you make a great slaughter among them …”
Let’s face it, using jet planes a missiles as those jihadist/ Muslims did of September 11, sure made a greater “slaughter among them” then sword can. Wake up West to the actual nature of Islam before it’s too late.
This, above, is the essay that so terrible upset and offended the Facebook chiefs with their pro-Islamic CS.
James Lincoln says
Excellent post, my compliments. A lot to process…
My favorite version of “Try to Remember” was one recorded by Perry Como in 1968. It makes me think of life in the United States prior to the 1979 Iranian revolution.
How I wish I could go back to a time back then when islam was some “strange religion” that I once had the luxury of knowing nothing about….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5R7jk2sw4M
Wellington says
For many years now those on the Left and globalists interested only in profits (often the same) have demonstrated an overwhelming tendency to lump conservatives with reactionaries. I am a conservative, I am not a reactionary and actually loathe the Far Right as much as I do the Far Left because they’re both bonkers and if they get power will destroy freedom (N.B., Islam is a Far Right ideology and no other major religion in its theological blueprint is either Far Right or Far Left).
This is a great deception by the Left and its allies to discredit conservative thought by way of making no distinction between it and reactionary thinking. There is a huge difference between the thought of, say, a William F. Buckley Jr., who died in 2008, and a nut like Alex Jones who is a 9/11 Truther. While I defend the right of Jones to have a forum and do not want to silence him, nor those on the Far Left either, this does not mean I endorse or admire him as I admired a person like Bill Buckley, who actually early in his journalism career after graduating from Yale went to great efforts to make sure that the Far Right John Birch Society would not be thought of as just another conservative group.
Notice too how the MSM and its ilk regularly refer to conservatives as right-wing but never in the MSM do you find a liberal described as left-wing. Yep, if you are a liberal you will not be lumped with the loons on the Far Left but if you are a conservative just expect there to be no difference made between you and some Far Right nut. Happens all the time and it is wrong, deceptive and stupid. It does not advance either the cause of liberty or truth.
mortimer says
Excellent points by Wellington to be committed to memory for future debates with knee-jerk Leftards. Particular good: 1) ‘Islam is a Far Right ideology’; 2) (Leftists) “lump conservatives with ‘far right'”.
This is an excellent technique, namely, to put the Leftards on the defensive by demanding they substantiate their sweeping claims.
Sample questions to ask Leftists: “Why do you not criticize Islam, since it is clearly a ‘far right’, theocratic, political ideology? Are cultural-Marxist socialism and far-right theocracy compatible?’
James Lincoln says
Excellent exchange between Wellington and mortimer.
My compliments..
Wellington says
Thanks, James. Again I see mortimer and myself “on the same page.” Definitely a positive.
Westman says
The future balkanization of the internet is rather obvious.
Appeasement is the usual first step when losing power to a government. Eventually governments roll over appeasers and take complete control. Facebook, twitter, et al., will find themselves replaced by services within foreign nations opposed to actual free speech, and likely many of those having limited free speech. It’s only a matter of time; the social-tech giants are only feeding an alIigator that is becoming ravenous.
Frank Anderson says
This is what nobody wants to hear, what I hate to write, but what is needed to hear. The Constitution with extremely narrow exceptions applies ONLY to government action. The most immediately obvious exception is “public accommodations” under Katzenbach v. McClung and the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Otherwise, private companies like those mentioned, and many others, are free to butcher and ignore what we treasure as rights with impunity, as long as we continue to help them be profitable. Why spend time and effort publicizing private companies who violate rights instead of those which support rights? If there is a lesson in history where evil and corruption has changed to good by itself, I don’t know it. By encouraging competitors with good publicity, the profit that keeps the abusers going will decline while the good companies’ grow.
However inconvenient it may be for the moment to cut loose from companies which are obnoxious, offensive and subversive, the inconvenience is temporary; and the ultimate benefits are major. MOVE ON.
mortimer says
Dear FA, thanks for this illuminating and clear explanation. How can we ‘move on’ to another internet platform? Won’t the same thing happen to the next platform we chose? They will start free and then commercial giants will dictate their surrender to political correctness!
Please enlighten me on your proposed prescription and cure for this disease.
Frank Anderson says
Respected Mortimer, a war is rarely if ever won by a single battle. Islam has been trying to conquer the world for 1400 years, killing and enslaving billions (US standard numbers). Companies which support honest free speech exist somewhere. They need to be identified and supported, both to increase their power and drain the power of those which wish to enslave us by denying what we expect to be basic rights.
Wasting our resources fighting rear-guard actions keeps us from staging our own offensives to take away their power. NEVER be afraid to MOVE ON to more productive efforts. How much success has anyone ever achieved trying to teach Nazi or Communist leaders the value of free speech? NONE that I can see. On the contrary, the effort usually ends in a concentration or death camp.
Wellington says
Frank, very fine (and accurate) comments on this thread by you. Thank you.
On a specific matter that is rooted in legality, where do you stand on the matter of breaking up monopolies in a free society? I have President Teddy Roosevelt in mind here most especially and what he argued for and did. At what point does a truly free society need to engage in breaking up monopolies while still of course preserving liberty?
Your turn, pal.
Frank Anderson says
Wellington, IN GENERAL, government intervention against monopolies is the last choice. Before allowing monopoly power to exist, consumers should see the light and make choices to defeat monopoly power.
For example, look at Duckduckgo.com going head-to-head with MASSIVE Google. A search engine that does NOT keep track of users. So why use Google when a competitor is available? Ignorance of the choice. Laziness. Lack of concern. “There is more than one way to solve most problems.” When the powerful see that their power is limited, they will think twice. When they lose that power our liberty grows. Our job if we wish to not just maintain liberty, but to make it grow, is to focus our fight on winning, not holding ground we already own.
Obviously I have considerable personal experience teaching me these lessons at great expense and hardship.
James Lincoln says
mortimer,
As an analogy, cable news ranges from CNN to Fox.
It would be great to have similar competition in social media – as conservative alternatives to Facebook, Google, etc.
Walter Sieruk says
It should also be mentioned that as for a Muslim infiltrated corporate entities, as Facebook is but one of the companies that has embraced such pro-Islamic folly and madness.
Yahoo is another company that many times , if not always , deletes Conservative all American postings.
Walter Sieruk says
To reiterate both Facebook and yahoo. are guilty of slyly promoting the stealth and violent jihad of Islam
DHazard says
The people at the top of the big tech companies have blood on their hands. But it’s not the blood of their children or the blood of their friends. It’s the blood of somebody else’s children, family members and friends. They have layers upon layers of “walls” protecting them and their version of reality from contact with the poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
Lydia Church says
Just a note:
“Deplatformed: How Big Tech Companies & Corporate America Subvert the Second Amendment,” by Sam Jacobs, Ammo.com, January 26, 2020:
… I believe that should read ‘first amendment’?
David Kyle Foster is a leader in the “ex-gay” movement, a group of Christians who claim that their religion has “cured” their homosexuality. His Vimeo channel, featuring over 700 personal testimonials, was pulled from Vimeo for being “hateful.”
Some of these quotation marks need to be edited out, all but the last set. Jesus saves us from our sins not only in a forgiveness of past guilt sense, but in a victory over the power of sin here and now sort of way. So yes, He also saves us from the power of the sin of homosexuality over our lives, He sets us free from slavery to sin in every way when we turn to Him in repentance to save us in earnest and sincerity. The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin: Romans 1; 26-27, 1 Corinthians 6; 9-11, Leviticus 18; 22, 20; 13, 1 Timothy 1; 10, Deuteronomy 22; 5 (no cross dressing). And God’s Word is right.
WHAT’S TO COME:
Expect to see more of this. The globalists want to censor the Christian worldview, which is conservative; i.e. we are anti-abortion, against the sin of homosexuality, gay marriage, transgender, etc., the Bible is God’s Word and we live out our faith wherever we go, Jesus is the only way to heaven, evangelism, etc. etc.
It’s already conforming to what I knew what happen and I know the trend will continue since we are in the end times. Even if the truth is not pretty, it is better to know it than not to know it. All the end times Bible prophesies will come to pass, and are coming to pass. We see it more by the day.
Lydia Church says
edit: would happen
And yes, that’s the only edit.
Thanks.
; )
Frank Anderson says
L.C. I suggest the headline could apply to both Amendments. Please notice that it appeared in a publication titled Ammo.com.
The Second Amendment obviously relates to the right to keep and bear arms, which is rendered meaningless in the absence of ammunition.
Certainly, to many in the US, both amendments are important, the First dealing generally with Free Speech and the Second as the ultimate limitation on government tyranny.
Outside the US, where the right of self-defense has been rendered null and void, and the right to bear arms has long disappeared, both amendments mean nothing. The US is unique in the world with a written constitution limiting the power of government in favor of the people. Ongoing efforts to render the entire Constitution meaningless need to be fought with every bit of skill and conviction as were applied to bring it into being.
martin says
i just hope this moron never becomes king.
martin says
OOPS I meant this comment for the article on mince charles and his ignorance of islam.
Peanut says
The internet, Google, FaceBook and others do not fall under the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech or freedom of the press. It should but it doesn’t. That is why there is sex trafficking on these platforms.
The congress has been bought and paid for. They will make no laws enforcing free speech or freedom of the press on these entities. The proof is in the pudding – when executives were called before the senate – the senate took no action against them.
gravenimage says
Sex trafficking is not protected under freedom of speech. This is not about the platform.