Tag Archives: free speech

More Big Tech Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

This time, perpetrated by Sundar Pichai and his YouTube—which Pichai controls through his control of Alphabet and Google (the latter which is wholly owned by Alphabet) and through his Google’s ownership of YouTube.

Real America’s Voice has been suspended from YouTube for a week for posting an exclusive interview with former President Donald Trump in which he discusses the disputed 2020 presidential election.

This is an image of the YouTube notice RAV received and subsequently showed to Just the News:

The notice image is hard to read (try the right-click|open in new tab trick), YouTube claimed to RAV that the video included prohibited content that “advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of the U.S. 2020 presidential election.”

Except that the video—the interview with former President Donald Trump (R)—did no such thing. It merely contained Trump’s claim of a fraudulent outcome of the 2020 election. There’s not a minim of fraud, errors, or glitches, widespread or not, in the fact of his claim. Some might—and many do—dispute Trump’s claim, but there’s nothing in the censored video that is false regarding the fact of Trump’s statements about the election or in RAV‘s recording and reporting of Trump’s statements.

Of course, Pichai knows this full well; he’s that bent on censoring speech of which he personally disapproves and over which he has the nakedly raw power to commit his censorship.

A Joke?

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) was asked a question while he was playing around with an electric Ford F-150 truck, taking it for joy test drives around the parking lot of a Ford plant in Michigan.

Here’s the exchange.

Reporter: Mr President, can I ask you a quick question on Israel before you drive away since it’s so important?
Biden: No, you can’t. Not unless you get in front of the car as I step on it. I’m only teasing[.]

Only teasing?

This is part and parcel with his then-boss President Barack Obama’s (D) overt attack on journalists, arresting one, spying on another’s personal communications, spying on that one’s mother’s personal communications, attempting to blackball an entire news organization—all because they asked inconvenient questions.

This was no joke—Joe Biden was threatening a journalist because the man asked an inconvenient question.

Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

Facebook’s “Review Board” has decided that Facebook should continue censoring former President Donald Trump (R). They also issued some pap about how Facebook wasn’t clear enough about why, or for how long the censoring should occur, but the bottom line is—keep on keepin’ on censoring.

This is Mark Zuckerberg continuing his censorship of those political figures of whom he disapproves. (The putative independence of Facebook’s review board from Facebook is an irrelevancy, since Facebook has a controlling role in appointing board members.)

This, also, is another example of why the big tech companies, of which Facebook is a canonical example, need to be disassembled and the separated pieces regulated as utilities or as public accommodations.

A Free Speech Oral Argument

Posted on by
Reply

(Pun not necessarily intended.)

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of a 14-year-old girl who tried out for, and didn’t make, a varsity cheerleading team and subsequently vented her frustrations in a Snapchat rife with “colorful metaphors.”

The girl’s school punished her with a year-long suspension from cheerleading, she demurred from the punishment, lower courts agreed with her, and the school continued its protest to the Supremes.

Attorney Lisa Blatt, representing the girl’s school, had this, among others, at oral argument, as paraphrased by Just the News:

Schools aren’t trying to police political, religious, or critical expression, or impose the heckler’s veto…. They want to address digital bullying, harassment, and cheating….
A student who is upset at her teacher can safely text her views to friends but not picket the teacher’s house, Blatt told Chief Justice John Roberts: the “manner” of speech is the issue, not the offensiveness of it.

And

[Blatt] rejected the suggestion that students can get in trouble for simply sharing unpopular views: wearing a Confederate flag symbol “alone” is protected, but not using it to “terrorize” a black student.

Blatt seemed unable to address those arguments in detail, however.

What about students or teachers who think a student’s positions on police, politics, or religion are themselves offensive?

What about students or teachers who think a student’s disagreement with another student’s (or teacher’s) positions on police, politics, or religion is harassment or bullying?

What about students who think another student’s wearing of a Confederate flag symbol “alone” terrorizes them?

We’re on a short, slippery, downhill road off the edge of a very high, steep cliff when we begin expanding limits on speech.