Facebook had a post up, recently, that the government of Singapore didn’t like and of which that government disputed the truthfulness.
As a result, By Order Of the Singapore government, Facebook added a notice—a “label”—to the post:
Facebook is legally required to tell you that the Singapore government says this post has false information.
For a wonder, Facebook didn’t take the post down, nor did it make any effort to “correct” its content. Instead, it posted the notice, letting readers decide for themselves…whether they should take seriously the post or the notice required by a mendacious government.
Stanley Fish, Floersheimer Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at Yeshiva University’s Benjamin N Cardozo School of Law, thinks that when Seton Hall “disinvited” him from speaking there he wasn’t being censored.
Fish’s headline, I Wasn’t Censored When I Was Disinvited, led off his claim. Then he contradicted himself with the opening sentence of his second paragraph:
My ideas were judged unworthy of being heard.
This is precisely what censorship is. Here is a legal definition of censorship:
The suppression or proscription of speech or writing that is deemed obscene, indecent, or unduly controversial.
The Progressive-Democratic Party vs the Republican Party.
Progressive-Democratic Party icon—and proud progressive—Hillary Clinton wants to ban free speech, and the first step is Twitter’s Jack Dorsey’s ban on the free speech of political advertising, done with her wholehearted and full throated support.
Twitter made the right decision to say, “Look, we don’t want to get into the judging game.” I think that should be the decision that Facebook makes as well.
Never mind that banning political ads—a form of the speech explicitly protected under the 1st Amendment—is a most fundamental bit of judging speech. Note that Clinton desire to extend the ban to Facebook:
That’s what that icon of the Left, Juan Williams, says.
The reality is that [Facebook CEO Mark] Zuckerberg doesn’t seem to understand, from my perspective, that he’s undermining his brand by allowing political lies to be put on his platform. That, to me, lessens the trust that the consumer has.
Because censoring speech—especially politically speech—is the way to win the hearts and minds and trust of the consumer.
Certainly, controlling speech and allowing only that which the Left approves—what Juan Williams personally approves—can be a tool for winning controlling the hearts and minds of citizens, but trust? No. Censorship destroys trust.
Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO, has struck again. Now he’s banning “all political advertising on Twitter globally.” He’s justifying this move with this bit of fantastical rationalization:
We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought.
I suppose, then, he believes television, radio, print media—along with his competitors, Facebook, Alphabet, et al.—also should ban political advertising on their platforms. After all, political message reach should be earned, not bought.
A political message earns reach when people decide to follow an account or retweet. Paying for reach removes that decision, forcing highly optimized and targeted political messages on people.
Its name is Jack Dorsey.
The social media company led by CEO Jack Dorsey [that would be Twitter for those of you playing along at home] said in a Tuesday blog post that it will not allow users to like, reply, share or retweet offending tweets, but it will let users quote-tweet them so they can still express their own opinions.
Dorsey has reserved to himself the right to decide how an opinion is expressed on his medium. Quote-tweet a tweet he finds personally objectionable but not simply retweet it?
In his piece for Fox News about LeBron James quizzing NBA Commissioner Adam Silver over a General Manager’s tweet, Ryan Gaydos opened with this:
Amid the firestorm ignited by Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey’s tweet supporting pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong
This is backwards. Morey simply tweeted a truth. The firestorm was ignited by the cowardly, picayune, and avaricious responses of the NBA and of arrogant ignoramuses like LeBron James and Steve Kerr to the PRC’s manufactured outrage.
Gaydos should know better, or is he one of those who are misinformed or not educated about this?
Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA) wants to break up Facebook, and in the meantime, she wants Facebook to shut down free speech the speech of those of whom she disapproves—especially political ads posted to Facebook (for a fee charged by Facebook) by Republicans and Conservatives. Zuckerberg’s response?
Facebook’s vice president of global affairs and communications Nick Clegg wrote that the company does not believe its role is to “prevent a politician’s speech from reaching its audience and being subject to public debate and scrutiny.”
[Heads up: long post]
By American enterprises, no less. And, no, this time I’m not talking about American social media like Facebook or Twitter. Keep in mind the NBA’s ongoing assault on free speech in the form of openly rejecting one team General Manager’s tweet supporting freedom in Hong Kong. The NBA’s response—from individual players on up, through team coaching staff and front office personnel, to the NBA’s head office and its commissioner, Adam Silver—was to reject the GM’s tweet in sum and substance and to apologize to the People’s Republic of China’s government and sports authorities so meekly as to be, metaphorically, in deep bows while doing so. And that GM abjectly deleted his own tweet—he didn’t even have the courage of his conviction.
Here’s another example of Progressive-Democrats and Party’s Presidential candidates objecting to free speech.
Senator [and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate] Kamala Harris said on Monday night that President Trump should have his Twitter account suspended over his tweets about the whistleblower whose complaint has helped launch an official House inquiry into his potential impeachment.
Trump’s terrible crime here? He expressed his desire to meet his accuser, a right all Americans have when accused of wrong-doing.
She went on, paraphrased by Fox News: