According to Pew Research, from 2007 to 2019, American participation in social media rose 67%, and since 2018, “around half of Americans have engaged in some form of political or social-minded activity on social media”. Platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram provide a place for users to share their ideas directly with fellow supporters, engage in public debates and gain knowledge from those who spend time researching and sharing facts. Often times this research completely refutes the propaganda by the media elite or paid political shills.
Entities like Twitter claim to be free speech platforms while safely hiding behind section 230 of the CDA (47 U.S.C. § 230), “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”, to justify censorship by banning accounts, restricting users from being seen, maneuvering algorithms to benefit their social and political beliefs. They control the narrative while avoiding liability. The purpose of section 230 was to prevent social network platforms from being liable for user content while allowing them to control hate speech. However, the protection was intended to “offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity” and “to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.” Section 230 was never intended for social media platforms to use a weapon against opposing political beliefs. However, we now know that it is.
Project Veritas recently revealed a Google executive admitting that they have been working since 2016 on ways to prevent “the Trump situation” from happening again. Documents provided to James O’ Keefe by a whistleblower show Google purposely changing the algorithms to manipulate search results in order to change users social and political ideology. According to the whistleblower, a narrative is created in place of fact-finding results “by establishment players”, the social justice warriors of big tech. Shortly after the expose’, Google owned YouTube, removed the video.
Facebook has “deboosted” conservative videos, YouTube employees have admitted to manipulating trends and Twitter was exposed to have employee political bias and are willing to bypass freedom of speech by suppressing conservatives to satisfy their own agenda. Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, admits they can no longer be fair when he was asked about the obvious bias, “I don’t believe that we can afford to take a neutral stance anymore. I don’t believe that we should optimize for neutrality.” Google argued in a case brought against MyTriggers.com that the phrase “otherwise objectionable” written in section 230 “must be read to include any type of editorial discretion Google uses when selecting which ads to include in its search results”. In a separate free speech lawsuit against twitter, lawyers argued “impose liability on YouTube as a publisher” arguing that YouTube has the First Amendment rights “for a publisher’s editorial judgment”. These are just a few examples of how each platform admit in court to being both a publisher and protected by section 230.
As we can see for ourselves these goliath corporations have the power to do what they please and not hide the fact they are untouchable. Or are they? I offer an article well written by my friend, co-contributor and Senior Editor for New Media Central, the Constitutional Conservative. He explains how a law that is more than a century old may be the answer.
“There is, however an alternative to regulation. It’s one we have seen lurking on the horizon, and it’s one that has been on the books since long before the internet, when telephones had only been available for about 50 years. The Sherman Antitrust Act was passed to combat monopolistic business practices. It was an attempt to curb the unfair control that big companies had over the market so that competition could thrive, and ultimately benefit the consumers.”
On July 1st, I was suspended permanently from Twitter after a video I tweeted of antifa beating two men in Portland went viral. Not long after my suspension, Twitter removed U.S. veteran and popular commentator, Joe Biggs blue check mark and within minutes suspended him permanently from Twitter. Shortly after Biggs was suspended, I received a text that said he was removed from Shopify for “hate speech”. Immediately I went to the site’s policy page and discovered the day Joe was suspended, Shopify updated their terms of service. These are just a few examples out of thousands of conservative voices being silenced while big tech hides behind a law.
Congress enacted section 230 of Communications Decency Act to avoid liability. The movement to control narrative reaches far beyond social media which include banks closing accounts and even in public where a person can be attacked for wearing a red hat which simply expresses the desire to support their president and the motto he stands behind. The liberal narrative goes beyond what the Supreme Court ruled as hate speech. The narrative is if you support Donald J. Trump, you support hate speech. The frustration by conservatives can be seen across all platforms.
It is undeniable that Conservative voices are being silenced, while even the most extreme voices from the left go unchecked. The precept of Constitutionally protected speech is intentionally broad. Likewise, the precepts of what is not protected free speech is intentionally extremely narrow, so as to afford the widest possible latitude to the speaker.
Free speech is not a right bestowed upon us by the government, nor is it granted arbitrarily by the powerful. Free speech is as Thomas Jefferson alluded to in the Declaration of Independence, bestowed by our Creator. The Constitution protects those rights equally, without ideological bias or prejudice.
You may praise the efforts of Corporate Censorship today, because today they seem to be quashing the message of those you despise. However, it’s important to remember that we are a fickle people, and tomorrow it could be you who’s voice is supressed. Once you give your rights away, you seldom get them back.