Leftists Hate Free Speech Because They Fear Dissent, Not ‘Disinformation’

I think one of the most bizarre social developments of the past 10 years in the US has been the slow but steady shift of the political left as supposed defenders of free speech to enemies of free speech. The level of mental gymnastics on display by leftists to justify their attacks on freedom and the 1st Amendment is bewildering.

leftists hate free speech because they fear dissent, not 'disinformation'

So much so that I begin to question if liberals and leftists ever actually had any respect for 1st Amendment rights to begin with? Or, maybe the only freedom they cared about all along was the freedom to watch pornography…

One can see the steady progression of this war on speech and ideas, and the end game is predictable:

Is anyone really that surprised that the Biden Administration is implementing a Ministry of Truth in the form of the DHS Disinformation Governance Board?

Can we just accept the reality at this point that leftists are evil and their efforts feed into an agenda of authoritarianism? Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Before I get into this issue, I think it’s important to point out that it’s becoming tiresome to hear arguments these days suggesting that meeting leftists “somewhere in the middle” is the best and most desirable option. I see this attitude all over the place and I think it comes from a certain naivety about the situation we are facing as a country.

Moderates and “normies” along with people like Bill Maher and Russell Brand are FINALLY starting to realize how bag-lady-crazy leftists are and the pendulum is swinging back slightly. But, it was conservatives that were calling out the social justice cult and their highway to hell for years.

While everyone else was blissfully ignorant, we were fighting the battles that stalled the leftist advance. This is not to say I’m not happy to have moderates and reformed liberals on board, it’s a great thing. However, the time for diplomacy and meeting leftists halfway is long dead.

There is no such thing as a “center” in our society anymore, either you lean conservative and you support freedom, or you lean left and support authoritarianism. There is no magical and Utopian in-between that we need to achieve to make things right. We are not required to tolerate leftist authoritarianism because of “democracy.”

Sometimes certain ideologies and certain groups are mutually exclusive to freedom; meaning, they cannot coexist within a society that values liberty.

We need to be clear about where the lines are drawn, because sitting on the fence is not an option. Walk in middle of road? Get squished like grape.

To understand how leftists got to the point of enthusiastic hatred of free speech rights there are some psychological and philosophical factors that need to be addressed. These include specific ideals that leftists value that are disjointed or simply irrational:

Hate Speech Is Real And Must Be Censored?

First, as I have argued for many years, there is no such thing as “hate speech.” There is speech that some people don’t like and speech they are offended by. That is all.

Constitutionally, there is no hate speech. People are allowed to say any offensive thing they wish and believe however they wish as long as they are not slandering a person’s reputation with lies or threatening them with direct bodily harm. If you are offended by criticism, that is your problem.

Leftists believe the opposite. Instead of growing a thicker skin they think that “hate speech” should be illegal and that they should be the people that determine what hate speech is.

This is a kind of magical door to power, because if you can declare yourself the arbiter of hate speech you give yourself the authority to control ALL speech. That is to say, as the thought police all you have to do is label everything you don’t like as hate speech, no matter how factual, and you now dictate the course of society.

No one is capable of this kind of objectivity or benevolence. No person alive has the ability to determine what speech is acceptable without bias.

Like the One Ring in the Lord of The Rings, there is no individual or group capable of wielding such power without being corrupted by it. Either there is no hate speech, or everything becomes hate speech.

Free Speech Is Negated By Property Rights?

This is in direct reference to social media websites and it’s an oversimplification of the issue of free speech and large social media platforms. Here is the conundrum or “false paradigm” if you will:

Leftists argue for private property rights, but only when it comes to vast corporate big tech platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. They like private property rights for companies that they think are on their side politically; they hate private property rights for everyone else. Just look at their response to Elon Musk’s recent Twitter buyout; the leftists are demanding that Musk be stopped at all costs, and they demand that the SEC and FCC step in to disrupt the sale because they claim Musk’s purchase is a “threat to democracy.”

The media itself is clamoring to disrupt Musk’s takeover of Twitter. Whether or not you trust him, Musk’s acquisition of the platform has at least exposed the totalitarian attitudes of mainstream journalists for everyone to see. They are now even admitting on air that THEY control public discussion; that it is “their job,” and they see Musk as a threat to that monopoly.

Why are Elon Musk’s private property rights less important or protected than the original shareholders of Twitter (Vangaurd, BlackRock, Morgan Stanley and a Saudi Prince)? Because Musk does not claim to represent leftist designs and interests?

Leftists have no principles, they only care about manufacturing consent. Their method of winning requires that they never restrict themselves within the boundaries of values or morals. Again, this is the epitome of pure evil.

Beyond that irony, though, is the deeper issue of government intervention vs business rights. Many people seem to think that government power is supposed to balance out corporate power when the truth is that governments and corporations work hand in hand; they are often one in the same entity.

Twitter and other Big Tech platforms receive billions upon billions of dollars in government stimulus and tax incentives every year. Corporations as a concept are essentially a socialist creation. They enjoy limited liability and corporate personhood along with other special protections under government charter.

With all these protections, incentives, bailouts and stimulus measures it is almost impossible for small and new businesses to compete with them. They represent a monopoly through cartel; they control the marketplace by colluding with each other and colluding with the government.

A perfect example of this would be the coordination between multiple Big Tech companies to bring down Parler, a conservative leaning competitor to Twitter.

This required some of the biggest companies in the world working in unison along with the blessing of government officials to disrupt the ability of a new company to offer an alternative, and all because Parler was getting too big.

In the case of a private person’s home or their small business or small website, it’s true that there are no free speech rights.

They can kick you out and they don’t have to give a reason. But when it comes to massive conglomerates that receive billions in OUR tax dollars in order to stay alive, no, they do not deserve private property rights.

They have now made themselves into a public utility, and that means they are subject to constitutional limitations just as public schools and universities are.

This is a concept that leftists just don’t grasp. They view corporate power as sacrosanct…as long as it serves their interests.

Consider global corporations like Disney and their open intention to undermine the passage of Florida’s anti-grooming bill; this represents Disney’s vocal support for the sexualization and indoctrination of children in Florida schools.

Leftists cheered the announcement and claimed that without Disney, Florida’s economy would be wrecked. Instead, the state turned the tables and took away incentives they had been giving to Disney for decades.

Leftists responded by accusing Governor DeSantis of being a “fascist” and attacking free speech.

But let’s break this down: Leftists happily supported Disney, a massive conglomerate, and their efforts to undermine the will of the voters in Florida.

The state government stops them from undermining the voters by taking away the money and special incentives that belong to the voters. In turn, leftists claim this is a violation of Disney’s rights?

The disparity between leftist arguments on Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter vs. Disney’s attempted sabotage of Florida law could not be more confused.

When it comes to Twitter they love the idea of censorship and react with panic when the mere prospect of free speech (within the confines of US law) is presented.

When it comes to Disney, they say they love the idea of free speech, and anyone that wants to limit the corporation’s influence within Florida, no matter how criminal, is accused of fascism.

The difference is obvious – Musk appears to be an uncontrolled element, while Disney is an “ally.” Free speech and property rights are only allowed for one side of the cultural divide. Leftists attacking freedom is free speech; defending ourselves against those attacks is a threat to democracy. It’s absurd.

Disinformation Is A Threat And Censorship Is The Solution?

The holy grail of censorship is not website filters and algorithms, because as we have seen with Twitter, those platforms could be built or purchased by someone that does not share in the leftist agenda.

Instead, government intervention and the ability to define what is proper and improper discourse is the ultimate goal. The end game of authoritarians is always to write mass censorship into law, as if it is justified once it is codified.

Corporate elites and political puppets like Biden pontificating about the threat of “disinformation” is hilarious for a number of reasons, but mainly because it is the power brokers and the media that have been the main purveyors of disinformation for a long time. Suddenly today they care about the spread of lies?

I think it is obvious that such people are far more worried about the spread of facts, evidence and truth. They cannot debate on fair ground because they will lose, so, the only other option is to silence us.

The institution of the Disinformation Governance Board is a clear indication that the establishment and the useful idiots on the political left are becoming DESPERATE.

Their grip on the public mind is slipping, and we saw this during their recent attempts to enforce medical tyranny across the country in the name of covid.

Luckily, conservatives in at least 20 red states fought against the implementation of covid lockdowns, mandates and jjab passports which would have annihilated our constitutional rights forever.

For years I heard the argument that when the jackboots arrived conservatives would do nothing, and now we know this is nonsense.

Some of the few free places in the world during two years of pandemic fear mongering were red states in America, which coincidentally also have the highest concentration of conservatives.

If you want to know what our country would look like had conservatives not stopped the tide of tyranny, just take a gander at China today.

They have some of the strictest covid mandates on the planet and yet they are once again locking down millions of citizens due to “high infection rates.” Not only that, but they are starving their own people in the process.

It’s madness, and it’s exactly what leftists were arguing in favor of just a few months ago. The US is mostly open today, just as red states like mine have been free for almost the entirety of the pandemic, and what has changed? Half the country is still unvaccinated – Is there mass death in the streets? Nope.

Nothing has changed in terms of covid. The mandates made no difference whatsoever, other than to disrupt the economy and reduce people’s freedoms.

Not long ago, pointing out this fact was considered “disinformation” that needed to be silenced in order to “save lives.” The Hunter Biden laptop story was called disinformation.

The Wuhan Lab story was called disinformation. Fauci’s gain of function research on covid at the Wuhan lab was called disinformation. The fact that vaccinated people still contract and die from covid was called disinformation.

In other words, what the government and corporate oligarchs call “disinformation” today is eventually called reality tomorrow.

I would be happy to enter into a fair debate with White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on any of the above issues and her views of what constitutes “disinformation,” but she would never do such a thing because she knows she would be crushed like a bug.

It is not the government’s job to protect the public from information, whether real or fake. It is not their job to filter or censor data or ideas. They are not qualified to do this. No one is.

Leftists operate from a collectivist mentality and this makes them believe that society is a singular entity that needs to be managed and manipulated to achieve a desired outcome.

They have no concept of individual responsibility and discernment, but that is a side note to the real problem. They support information control because facts and ideas outside of their narrative could possibly damage that narrative. And, if the narrative is damaged they lose their feeling of power, which is all they really care about.

If your narrative is so fragile that it does not hold up to scrutiny or alternative viewpoints then it must not be worth much of a damn. If you have to force people or manipulate people into believing the way you do, then your ideology must be fundamentally flawed.

The truth speaks volumes for itself and eventually wins without force. Only lies need to be forced into the collective consciousness. Only lies require tyranny.

Eventually reality wins over propaganda, unless total censorship and totalitarianism can be achieved. Nothing has changed in the 200+ years since the creation of the Bill of Rights.

Free speech is still integral to a functioning society. Without it, society crumbles. They will claim that today things are different and that society needs to be “protected from itself.” This is what tyrants always say when trying to steal power.

Most people reading this know by now that this is a war. It’s not a political debate that requires give-and-take, but a full-bore winner-take-all conflict. A DHS faction which is mandated to monitor our speech and propagandize the public is unacceptable and must be eliminated.

Leftist and globalist monopoly of social media communications platforms is unacceptable and must be eliminated. The imposition of leftist and globalist ideology into the media narrative while censoring any contrary information is unacceptable and must be eliminated.

This is about saving the remaining embers of American culture. If we do not take an aggressive stand now, the next generation may never know liberty. Everything we hold dear is at stake.

By Brandon Smith, Alt-Market.us

The Age Of Intolerance: Cancel Culture’s War On Free Speech

“Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners.” — George Carlin

Cancel culture — political correctness amped up on steroids, the self-righteousness of a narcissistic age, and a mass-marketed pseudo-morality that is little more than fascism disguised as tolerance — has shifted us into an Age of Intolerance, policed by techno-censors, social media bullies, and government watchdogs.

the age of intolerance cancel culture’s war on free speech

Everything is now fair game for censorship if it can be construed as hateful, hurtful, bigoted or offensive provided that it runs counter to the established viewpoint.

In this way, the most controversial issues of our day — race, religion, sex, sexuality, politics, science, health, government corruption, police brutality, etc. — have become battlegrounds for those who claim to believe in freedom of speech but only when it favors the views and positions they support.

Free speech for me but not for thee” is how my good friend and free speech purist Nat Hentoff used to sum up this double standard.

This tendency to censor, silence, delete, label as “hateful,” and demonize viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite is being embraced with a near-fanatical zealotry by a cult-like establishment that values conformity and group-think over individuality.

For instance, are you skeptical about the efficacy of the COVID-19 jabs? Do you have concerns about the outcome of the 2020 presidential election? Do you subscribe to religious beliefs that shape your views on sexuality, marriage and gender? Do you, deliberately or inadvertently, engage in misgendering (identifying a person’s gender incorrectly) or deadnaming (using the wrong pronouns or birth name for a transgender person)?

Say yes to any of those questions and then dare to voice those views in anything louder than a whisper and you might find yourself suspended on Twitter, shut out of Facebook, and banned across various social media platforms.

This authoritarian intolerance masquerading as tolerance, civility and love (what comedian George Carlin referred to as “fascism pretending to be manners”) is the end result of a politically correct culture that has become radicalized, institutionalized and tyrannical.

Putin: Wokeness is ‘Reversed Discrimination’ and a ‘Crime Against Humanity’.

In the past few years, for example, prominent social media voices have been censored, silenced and made to disappear from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram for voicing ideas that were deemed politically incorrect, hateful, dangerous or conspiratorial.

Most recently, Twitter suspended conservative podcaster Matt Walsh for violating its hate speech policy by sharing his views about transgendered individuals. “The greatest female Jeopardy champion of all time is a man. The top female college swimmer is a man. The first female four star admiral in the Public Health Service is a man. Men have dominated female high school track and the female MMA circuit. The patriarchy wins in the end,” Walsh tweeted on Dec. 30, 2021.

J.K. Rowling, author of the popular Harry Potter series, has found herself denounced as transphobic and widely shunned for daring to criticize efforts by transgender activists to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender. Rowling’s essay explaining her views is a powerful, articulate, well-researched piece that not only stresses the importance of free speech and women’s rights while denouncing efforts by trans activists to demonize those who subscribe to “wrongthink,” but also recognizes that while the struggle over gender dysmorphia is real, concerns about safeguarding natal women and girls from abuse are also legitimate.

Ironically enough, Rowling’s shunning included literal book burning. Yet as Ray Bradbury once warned, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

Indeed, the First Amendment is going up in flames before our eyes, but those first sparks were lit long ago and have been fed by intolerance all along the political spectrum.

Consider some of the kinds of speech being targeted for censorship or outright elimination.

Offensive, politically incorrect and “unsafe” speech: Political correctness has resulted in the chilling of free speech and a growing hostility to those who exercise their rights to speak freely. Where this has become painfully evident is on college campuses, which have become hotbeds of student-led censorship, trigger warningsmicroaggressions, and “red light” speech policies targeting anything that might cause someone to feel uncomfortable, unsafe or offended.

Bullying, intimidating speech: Warning that “school bullies become tomorrow’s hate crimes defendants,” the Justice Department has led the way in urging schools to curtail bullying, going so far as to classify “teasing” as a form of “bullying,” and “rude” or “hurtful” “text messages” as “cyberbullying.”

Hateful speech: Hate speech—speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation—is the primary candidate for online censorship. Corporate internet giants Google, Twitter and Facebook continue to re-define what kinds of speech will be permitted online and what will be deleted.

Dangerous, anti-government speech: As part of its ongoing war on “extremism,” the government has partnered with the tech industry to counter online “propaganda” by terrorists hoping to recruit support or plan attacks. In this way, anyone who criticizes the government online can be considered an extremist and will have their content reported to government agencies for further investigation or deleted. In fact, the Justice Department is planning to form a new domestic terrorism unit to ferret out individuals “who seek to commit violent criminal acts in furtherance of domestic social or political goals.” What this will mean is more surveillance, more pre-crime programs, and more targeting of individuals whose speech may qualify as “dangerous.”

The upshot of all of this editing, parsing, banning and silencing is the emergence of a new language, what George Orwell referred to as Newspeak, which places the power to control language in the hands of the totalitarian state.

Under such a system, language becomes a weapon to change the way people think by changing the words they use.

The end result is mind control and a sleepwalking populace.

In totalitarian regimes — a.k.a. police states — where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used.

In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind lest they find themselves ostracized or placed under surveillance.

Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned — discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred — inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.

The social shunning favored by activists and corporations borrows heavily from the mind control tactics used by authoritarian cults as a means of controlling its members. As Dr. Steven Hassan writes in Psychology Today:

“By ordering members to be cut off, they can no longer participate. Information and sharing of thoughts, feelings, and experiences are stifled. Thought-stopping and use of loaded terms keep a person constrained into a black-and-white, all-or-nothing world. This controls members through fear and guilt.”

This mind control can take many forms, but the end result is an enslaved, compliant populace incapable of challenging tyranny.

As Rod Serling, creator of The Twilight Zone, once observed, “We’re developing a new citizenry, one that will be very selective about cereals and automobiles, but won’t be able to think.”

The problem as I see it is that we’ve allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we need someone else to think and speak for us. And we’ve bought into the idea that we need the government and its corporate partners to shield us from that which is ugly or upsetting or mean. The result is a society in which we’ve stopped debating among ourselves, stopped thinking for ourselves, and stopped believing that we can fix our own problems and resolve our own differences.

In short, we have reduced ourselves to a largely silent, passive, polarized populace incapable of working through our own problems and reliant on the government to protect us from our fears.

As Nat Hentoff, that inveterate champion of the First Amendment, once observed, “The quintessential difference between a free nation, as we profess to be, and a totalitarian state, is that here everyone, including a foe of democracy, has the right to speak his mind.”

What this means is opening the door to more speech not less, even if that speech is offensive to some.

Understanding that freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society, James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one — even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints — would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

We haven’t done ourselves — or the nation — any favors by becoming so fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful or closed-minded that we’ve eliminated words, phrases and symbols from public discourse.

We have allowed our fears — fear for our safety, fear of each other, fear of being labeled racist or hateful or prejudiced, etc. — to trump our freedom of speech and muzzle us far more effectively than any government edict could.

Ultimately the war on free speech — and that’s exactly what it is: a war being waged by Americans against other Americans — is a war that is driven by fear.

By bottling up dissent, we have created a pressure cooker of stifled misery and discontent that is now bubbling over and fomenting even more hate, distrust and paranoia among portions of the populace.

By muzzling free speech, we are contributing to a growing underclass of Americans who are being told that they can’t take part in American public life unless they “fit in.”

The First Amendment is a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world. When there is no steam valve to release the pressure, frustration builds, anger grows, and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.

Be warned: whatever we tolerate now — whatever we turn a blind eye to — whatever we rationalize when it is inflicted on others will eventually come back to imprison us, one and all.

Eventually, “we the people” will be the ones in the crosshairs.

At some point or another, depending on how the government and its corporate allies define what constitutes “hate” or “extremism, “we the people” might all be considered guilty of some thought crime or other.

When that time comes, there may be no one left to speak out or speak up in our defense.

After all, it’s a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing truth. Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.

We are on a fast-moving trajectory.

In other words, whatever powers you allow the government and its corporate operatives to claim now, for the sake of the greater good or because you like or trust those in charge, will eventually be abused and used against you by tyrants of your own making.

This is the tyranny of the majority against the minority marching in lockstep with technofascism.

If Americans don’t vociferously defend the right of a minority of one to subscribe to, let alone voice, ideas and opinions that may be offensive, hateful, intolerant or merely different, then we’re going to soon find that we have no rights whatsoever (to speak, assemble, agree, disagree, protest, opt in, opt out, or forge our own paths as individuals).

No matter what our numbers might be, no matter what our views might be, no matter what party we might belong to, it will not be long before “we the people” constitute a powerless minority in the eyes of a power-fueled fascist state driven to maintain its power at all costs.

We are almost at that point now.

Free speech is no longer free.

On paper — at least according to the U.S. Constitution — we are technically free to speak.

In reality, however, we are only as free to speak as a government official — or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube — may allow.

The steady, pervasive censorship creep that is being inflicted on us by corporate tech giants with the blessing of the powers-that-be threatens to bring about a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.

Orwell intended 1984 as a warning. Instead, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it is being used as a dystopian instruction manual for socially engineering a populace that is compliant, conformist and obedient to Big Brother.

The police state could not ask for a better citizenry than one that carries out its own censorship, spying and policing.

Crushing Dissent Is Essential For Communism (And It’s Spreading Rapidly)

Here’s a news flash: Millions are watching serious cases of medical damage and even death grow and very little efficacy for these still experimental vaccines. If they work so well, why are they pushing booster after booster? Why are the most outbreaks clearly among the vaxxed?

Vaxx zealots have now had to admit that the purpose for all this force is that symptoms will be less severe. Really? Former health nuts were more careful about their tap water but now, they dutifully line up to take jab after jab after jab.

We are to believe that there’s nothing suspicious about the growing body of knowledge being suppressed or ignored about the dangers of these vaccines just as organized bullying and intimidation tactics continue and are even ramped up against those who refuse!

The argument for the use of force depends on the ridiculous and fraudulent claim that the unvaxxed are a threat to the vaxxed. If one gets past that preposterous notion, why would the vaxxed continue such fear and animosity toward the un-vaxxed?

Through the years, Rosen has rightfully pointed out that in a free society, 100% agreement is hardly a goal. Yet here, he seems to be saying that approximately 80 million people deserve the discrimination they get if they don’t comply. Huh?

We don’t demean those who refuse chemotherapy and I’m fairly sure most would oppose any government that would force it on patients “for their own good,” so why such anger at those who have said no? Didn’t we once revere the Patient’s Bill of Rights?

The deadliest virus right now is the one that is essential for socialism/communism to take hold, and it’s spreading rapidly: the crushing of dissent.

Full-scale mainstream media propaganda is being used to play on the emotions and constantly push fear and contempt for “Refusniks.” That makes the growing persecution and punishment of them more palatable to the public. We hope it won’t work.

It does appear to be working to some extent in Rosen’s case, whose article laid the responsibility for that persecution on the victims themselves. If they would just comply, they wouldn’t be inconvenienced.

Communist regimes begin with just that sort of emotional blackmail and they never stop with one group of scapegoats.

Also read: The Deadliest Virus In The World Is COMMUNISM And The ‘New Normal’ Is Modeled After Communist China.

https://www.brighteon.com/33090c2b-6100-4fd6-a4d0-ffa7022d8b31

https://www.brighteon.com/928449ea-331f-4277-a075-b388fef91914

The Internet Is The Modern Day Agora And Must Be Protected At All Costs

The ongoing purge of dissenting voices, shadow censorship and outright ban is the trademark of the Deep State: a rogue faction that has infiltrated all aspects of government and is now taking over the United State of AmericaThe Republic is at risk. We have never faced such a danger before.

The Internet is an integrated part of our society and it has a huge impact on our daily lives. It is the modern day agora — the principal medium for communication, conducting business, exchange of information, the center of the artistic, spiritual and political life.

The Internet must be protected at all costs!

Facebook Twitter Censorship

Trump Signs Executive Order Stripping Social Media Companies Of “Liability Shield”:

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.

One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.

Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c).

It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.

As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.

In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”

It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.

Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.

When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.”

Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.

The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

H.R. 6666 – The Nullifying Your 4th Amendment And Forcibly Separating Your Family To Keep You ‘Safe’ Act

Representative Bobby Rush (D-Il) introduced on May 1st H.R. 6666, a piece of Orwellian legislation that could create a national surveillance and quarantine program, allow government entry into our homes to test for Covid-19 and even grant the authority to remove Americans from their homes by force.

Also called the TRACE Act (Testing, Reaching and Contacting Everyone), the bill was co-sponsored by 58 house democrats and touts that it would allow the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to provide grants to some hospitals, schools, and nonprofits to help fight the coronavirus.

“This bill authorizes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to award grants for testing, contact tracing, monitoring, and other activities to address COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019).” [SOURCE]

H.r. 6666 – The Nullifying Your 4th Amendment And Forcibly Separating Your Family To Keep You ‘safe’ Act

However, the law would also give these organizations the power to test Americans for Covid-19 “as necessary, at individuals’ residences, and for other purposes,” and give the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to forcibly remove Americans from their homes if “necessitated by the circumstances of the declared emergency.” [SOURCE]

This bill is in clear violation of the fourth amendment, which guarantees, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

The key word here is ‘unreasonable’, however, meaning if the Supreme Court classifies it as ‘reasonable’, these home invasions will remain legal despite being clearly against the spirit of the law.

The push for forced entry echoes remarks made by the World Health Organization’s Dr. Michael Ryan in early April.

“In some senses, transmission has been taken off the streets and pushed back into family units, now we need to go and look in families and find those people who may be sick and remove them, and isolate them, in a safe and dignified manner.” – Dr. Michael Ryan [SOURCE]

The Queen of England voiced her support for forced entry as she compared it to British evacuations prior to the London bombings of WWII.

“[Citizens were] evacuated from their homes and sent away for their own safety. Today, once again, many will feel a painful separation from their loved ones but now, as then, we know, deep down, it is the right thing to do.” [SOURCE]

The TRACE Act has a keen focus on ‘contact tracing’, a term that effectively means government surveillance of our everyday behavior.

Its purpose is to test for who has the coronavirus and to whom they may have come in contact.

In Washington State, the government will soon require restaurants catalogue the phone numbers, emails, and time of arrival of every customer.

You may want to think twice if you believe that these programs will ever go away once enacted. Governments rarely give up power without incredible pushback from voters.

Edward Snowden articulated this brilliantly while the pandemic was still in its early stage.

“Do you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the coronavirus is a long-forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept?

“That these datasets will not be kept? No matter how it is being used, what is being built is the architecture of oppression.” – Edward Snowden [SOURCE]

Interestingly, Bill Gates was recently awarded patent #060606 for a, “crypto currency system using human body activity data.” In layman terms, it’s a patent for a digital tattoo microchip which can detect ‘body activity.’

Millions of dollars have already been awarded to companies for similar technologies by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Three Reminders From The Bill Of Rights

As a condition for accepting the Constitution, the American people demanded the enactment of the Bill of Rights immediately after ratification of the Constitution.

They had been assured that the Constitution was calling into existence a national government whose powers were limited to those enumerated in the Constitution.

But that did not satisfy them.

They wanted a Bill of Rights to make it clear that the federal government was prohibited from doing the things that are listed in the Bill of Rights.

Three Reminders From The Bill Of Rights

There are several important things to notice about the Bill of Rights:

First, the Bill of Rights, does not give people rights. Our ancestors understood that rights come from nature and God, not from government. People’s rights preexist government.

Second, the Bill of Rights consists of prohibitions and restrictions on the federal government. Why is that important?

Because our ancestors knew that the federal power would inevitably attract people to public office who would do the types of things that were being restricted.

They would criminalize speech, especially speech that was critical of federal officials. They would ban protests against government. They would force people to subscribe to a certain religion.

They would seize people’s guns. They would punish any malefactor by simply having civil or military agents take people into custody, incarcerate them, torture them, or execute them, all without trial by jury and due process of law.

The Bill of Rights was to serve as a reminder that federal officials had no legitimate power to do any of these things.

Third, the Bill of Rights contains no emergency or crisis exception.

That’s because our ancestors knew that historically crises and emergencies were the time-honored way by which people lost their liberties at the hands of their own government.

During such times, people become afraid and their natural tendency is to look to the government to keep them safe and secure.

They forget that the biggest threat to their liberty is their very own government, as reflected in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Thus, they eagerly trade away their liberty for “security.”

Later, when the crisis or emergency has passed, they discover that the government is unwilling to give up the power it has acquired over them.