Tag Archives: free speech

The Face of the Progressive-Democratic Party?

Posted on by
1

Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and House of Representatives candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) are the ideological face of the Progressive-Democratic Party, pushing for socialism to be inflicted on our nation.  We can have the political debate, except for the rest of the face of the Party.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D, CA) is openly pushing for violence against Republicans and Conservatives.  And we have Antifa verbally assaulting Conservatives Candace Owens and Charlie Kirk.  While they were not, this time, violent, the Antifa thugs were openly racist in their verbal assault, and they sought to completely shut down political debate concerning the direction our nation should take over the present next election cycle.

Progressive-Democrats’ silence on Antifa (and Waters) not only contributes to their desired goal of “no debate; it’s settled,” it shows that Progressive-Democrats actively condone the tactics being used.

Remember this this fall.

Naked Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

Now Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook is being blatant about censoring inconvenient truths.  He and Connecticut’s Chris Murphy are peas in a pod.

Elizabeth Heng is a Republican candidate for Congress from a California district centered on Fresno.  Her parents are emigres from Cambodia who also had escaped the genocide of the ’70s that Pol Pot had tried to inflict.  Heng tried to run a campaign ad that touted that fight, that survival, and her parents’ recovery from that terror.  When she put her ad on Facebook, Zuckerberg and his censorship algorithm-programming IT experts said Nope.

We don’t allow ads that contain shocking, disrespectful, or sensational content, including ads that depict violence or threats of violence[.]

Because an illustration of triumph over murderous adversity, when it comes from a Conservative, is shocking, disrespectful, or sensational.

No.  As Heng tweeted (because Facebook showed itself not reliably available to her, I speculate)

It’s unbelievable that @facebook could have such a blatant disregard for the history that many people, including my own parents, have lived through. I’m sure it is “shocking” for people to hear about this kind of injustice, but this is reality.

Once again, an illustration of the Left’s view of free speech.

Free Speech According to the Progressive-Democratic Party

Posted on by
1

Senator Chris Murphy (D, CT) wants to spread censorship about and vastly broaden it.  All in the name of democracy—Progressive-Democrat style.

Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it[.]

Censorship.  Because the only speech that should be free is that speech approved by our Betters.  Because ordinary Americans are just too grindingly stupid to be trusted with deciding for ourselves what to say, what to hear, and how to evaluate what we hear.

This is the “freedom” that the Progressive-Democratic Party will allow us.

An Oxymoron

Posted on by
Reply

Apple has chosen to conceal accesses to Infowars by removing links to it from Apple’s podcast facility because Apple thinks Infowars is too far right for Apple’s taste and because the site pushes bad speech.

This is rank censorship.

Eliminating easy access to Infowars podcasts marks a rare, prominent foray for Apple into an issue confronting many major internet companies: how to remove hateful or conspiratorial messages from their platforms without infringing on free speech.

This is an impossible task to achieve legitimately.  Our 1st Amendment is explicitly intended to protect unpopular or disgusting or hateful speech as well as “approved” speech.  The Amendment recognizes the ability of individual American citizens to think for themselves and to evaluate for themselves what speech they choose to hear, free from Government “advice.”

It’s true enough that the Amendment enjoins Government and not private enterprise.  However, the principle the Amendment protects is a universal one; it applies to all of us, individuals and enterprises alike.

Apple’s MFWIC, Tim Cook, clearly thinks he’s above all of this.  His attaboy for resisting the FBI’s demand that Apple destroy individuals’ ability to encrypt effectively their private communications has been used up.

Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Zuckerberg and his Facebook are moving to delete from Facebook postings items, which Zuckerberg is pleased to term “misinformation” or “false information” (and for which he’s been unable to provide a definition, coherent criteria, or a balanced set of “fact” checkers), that in addition to being somehow false incite violence.

Facebook will rely on local organizations of its choosing to decide whether specific posts contain false information and could lead to physical violence[.]

Because local sources in Sri Lanka or Malaysia, or Indonesia, are going to provide objective analyses—especially when the “incitement” is against the groups particularly hated in nations like those.

Sure.  I might know of some beachfront property north of Santa Fe that might be of interest, too.

No, this is just another excuse for Facebook to inflict censorship. Aside from the naked lack of objectivity inherent in the foregoing, the larger item is this.  Online posts, whether on Facebook, Twitter, random blogs, or news outlet Web sites, are not responsible for violence. The persons inflicting the violence are the ones responsible for the violence. Attempts to shift responsibility don’t alter that in the least. Zuckerberg knows this.