I Believe in Free Speech, BUT!

        I respect free speech, but I don’t like (fill in your adjective of choice).  This really isn't a First Amendment argument or defense, for most of the outrage comes from private institutions or students in our colleges.  Over the past couple of years, this line has entered increasingly into our vocabulary as the term “Cancel Culture” has fallen from favor and the progressive movement has had to deal with the criticism of trying to control speech with demands that certain types of speech much be outlawed.  

        Social media is a prime example of this approach where they somehow have given themselves the power of what speech is permitted and what speech must be condemned and the writer silenced.

During the pandemic, anyone who questioned the statements of the official party line of the CDC and Dr. Fauci was condemned as spreaders of disinformation.  It was only the official party line that was approved.  Rachael Maddow went on the air to explain to her viewers that if you didn’t get the vaccine, you were condemning the human race, but if you did get it you could never catch the virus and it would magically disappear and we could return to normal.  Was that information or propaganda?  By the way, at last count, she has had to take off on several occasions due to either having COVID or her partner having it.

The difference between speech and speech censorship was highlighted by a couple of events recently.  In December, as a part of a defamation lawsuit by John Stossel against FaceBook[1], the lawyers for FaceBook admitted in court that FaceBook “fact checkers” were merely offering opinion and while FaceBook (a private company) could ban you based on their opinion, the company could not be sued.

Then we have a conservative satire site “The Babylon Bee” banned from Twitter for mocking the Biden Administration’s Admiral (Dr.) Rachael Lavine as their “Man of the Year.”  Twitter’s CEO said Babylon Bee was suspended for their “hateful” content.[2]  To get back in Twitter’s good graces Babylon Bee has now celebrated the fact Admiral Lavine is 100% woman, although she has both x and y chromosomes which back in in the pre-woke era was considered the genetic makeup of a man[3].

Now we have the “I support free speech, but I reject disinformation.”  Several people have said this to me, but none of them can actually tell me how they can separate information from disinformation. 

Was the whole “Trump is in conclusion with Putin to cheat on the election” information or disinformation? Evidence continues to grow this whole affair began as a dirty trick in the Clinton Campaign.  Did the mainstream news even attempt to find the truth, or did they simply push the DNC approved line?  

How about the Hunter Biden story?  In the days before the election everyone with any credibility rolled out the idea this was just disinformation by the New York Post, now 18 months later the New York Times, the Washington Post, and ABCNNBCBS are begrudgingly admitting maybe there is some corruption between Hunter, the PRC, and “the big guy.”  Of course, the election is now in the rearview mirror, so job #1 accomplished.

---

[1] https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/facebook-admits-the-truth-fact-checks-are-really-just-lefty-opinion/

[2] https://www.newsweek.com/babylon-bee-seth-dillon-twitter-ban-censorship-rachel-levine-trans-debate-1689870

[3] https://www.genome.gov/27557513/the-y-chromosome-beyond-gender-determination

Facebook and Censorship

I saw this story Facebook Censors Navy SEALS to Protect Obama on Benghazi Gate on one of the news pages I read.  The original posting was made a political action committee called Special Operations Speaks and was up for about 24 hours when Facebook removed it for violation of Facebook’s Statement or Rights and Responsibilities.  I know many of the senior members of the PAC

I would expect someone might believe Facebook’s action was unconstitutional.  It was not, the first amendment prohibits the Government from abridging our right to worship and free expression.  It does not address a private enterprises right to, in fact, the expectation is that media will censor content that is presented.  This will become more prevalent as the Internet grows and is placed under increasing government regulation.

What I did find interesting is how the censors at Facebook central could take this action, that while political, the meme, is not threatening or in other ways any more inflammatory than what other political action groups have posted.  But whoever is in control of censorship central has this clear rule to hide behind.  Rule 5.  “Protecting Other Peoples Rights,” sub-rule 2.  “We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement or our policies.”

So the important lesson to take away is some faceless gnome at Facebook can remove anything you post, anytime they like.