web analytics

The Left demand Censorship

By Patrick Van Roy On February 22nd, 2020

Bloomberg cut an ad to spin his debate performance. Every campaign does it, it’s standard fare. Yet all day the media have gone nuts. He altered a video, he cut pieces together… blah blah It’s already been scrubbed by YouTube. Facebook and Twitter are “debating” whether or not it should run….. Excuse me ? Whether or not it should run….

Who the hell do these people think they are ? It’s Political Speech you can not censor it period. I live in a Super Tuesday State Bloomberg has been running ads here for a week, if I didn’t know who he was I’d vote for him. Whoever is doing his Comercial PR Presence is without a doubt the best I’ve ever seen. It’s not just the tech weenies pushing censorship. In looking for the Ad all I could find is this by the Washington Post…..

One thing Bloomberg got right in the Debate…. his side are the Communists

37 Responses to “The Left demand Censorship”

  1. There are no communists in American politics

  2. “Who the hell do these people think they are ? “

    Can I come around to your house and hang a banner – and you get no say on it because you let someone else hang a banner?

  3. you can’t come on my property and hang anything….. if ya do it’s trespassing and in my state if your on the property I can shoot ya. Also being MY Property I can hang a banner that says anything I want.

    That’s called property rights.

  4. “That’s called property rights.”

    So why do you have property rights and the owners of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter don’t?

  5. Who the hell do these people think they are ? It’s Political Speech you can not censor it period.

    These people are the owners of social media platforms and they are deciding if the vid should run on their privately owned platforms.

    That’s also property rights.

  6. they get tax and law breaks specifically with the proviso that they are free speech platforms.

    Fine take them away and they can put up whatever banners they want.

  7. Censorship is of course when something is legally blocked, but the choices of media organisations not to host something can of course be open to criticism and condemnation.

    Patrick – You can of course hang a banner that says anything you want, but there may well be consequences, socially and sometimes legally depending on what the banner says. You aren’t protected regardless of what you put up.

  8. Patrick

    I’m pretty sure the tax laws in particular make no reference to social media companies having to be ‘free speech platforms’. I would guess all social media platforms are entitled to decide their own restrictions and rules on content and they can refuse to host whatever they choose.

  9. “they get tax and law breaks specifically with the proviso that they are free speech platforms.”

    Where? Which tax breaks and law breaks do they get because they are free speech platforms? Be specific.

  10. What exact tax breaks do they get

    They are free speech platforms – AFAIK there is no prior moderation for content On those websites

    But as far as I know there is no platform anywhere where Any person can write anything that they want without any restriction

    Otherwise there would be no limitation on posts for Child pornography, porn in general, praise for the holocaust murders, Hamas / AQ indoctrination videos, instructions on how to commit suicide quick and easy, or how to make a bomb.

    Any private business has the right to keep that stuff off their site. It’s not even close to a debatable point.

    There can and should be debate on where the line should be, but there is always a line.

  11. They get tax and law breaks specifically with the proviso that they are free speech platforms

    I don’t think that’s true at all.

    Social media platforms are private enterprises which are entitled to do as they wish.

  12. He is repeating things that have been stated on Fox news and other junk platforms

    Platforms like Facebook and Twitter are quite different then say a newspaper or TV station in that the huge majority of the content will not be written by employees. Not edited beforehand by anybody

    That does not mean that the owners of those sites should ever lose all control Over what appears on their pages.

  13. Phantom I would say FU, but why bother you have proven on more than one occasion that on quite a bit of issues that you are dead above the neck.

    To accuse me of being a parrot of anyones views is a comment of you just being insulting and an ass. My views are my own. They have been the same nonmovable for the 20yrs we’ve been arguing.

    If I post something of Limbaugh, Levin, Tucker, or from Fox, The WSJ, NRO, Heritage or even the rags you read… they are posted not because I agree with them, but because they agree with me and support a view that I hold or am trying to explain to the unwashed.

    I am a proud shit hoarder and individualist with 100% confidence in my beliefs.

    I only share others material to show YOU that I am NOT the only one who holds my views.

  14. Very well

    You have stated That platforms like Facebook and Twitter have received special tax breaks because they Supposedly Have a status whereby they will never have control of anything that appears on their own pages

    If you did not hear this on right wing media, And if you did not hear this from lousy bums like Ted Cruz or rand Paul, Then where did you get this from?

    Did you do your own legal research?

    Which portion of the IRS code applies to this?

  15. Facebook, twitter, etc are protected from being suid for the content that is put on their platforms by a clause that says they are not editors and therefore have no control over their content.

    The want to red banner “questionable comments” “Questionable Content” THAT IS EDITING…. that defaults their anti-sue agreement.

    Do you know how many millions of people and governments would love to sue these corporations for things aired on their platforms ?

  16. If someone put something on their site, that is not edited by them

    If they prevent Something from ever appearing on their site, it has never appeared so how can there be any libel lawsuit From something that has never appeared

    The entire line of discussion is silly

  17. Again 99.999% Of what is posted on Facebook or Twitter has never been seen by a Facebook or Twitter employee beforehand

    If Facebook or Twitter employees / editors post something on the site it is in a different category altogether

    I think that some of us are completely confusing the two categories

    It’s Facebook or Twitter refuses to accept certain advertising, or if they delete content That they find objectionable, that doesn’t change any of this at all

    Some Republican politicians Like trump and Ted Cruz, and their right wing state media flunkies are spinning this in another way but they’re completely wrong

  18. So Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, rightwing scholars, lawyers and the laws themselves those are sources you don’t agree with so it’s a lie or a conspiracy, but you whose bible pushed fake news for 3 years that the russians caused trump to win and allow space for terrorists to write op eds… well they say differen’tr and they tell the truth ?

    Then why is Trump President, Why have 4 years of investigation produced none of the things that you and they have said they would produce…..

    Talk is talk your talk and your sources have been wrong on every issue this is just another issue that YOU and YOUR sources in the bubble have wrong they sound great but what have they added up to ? Nothing, not a damn single thing.

    Trump is still President and has a very good chance of being reelected and these platforms are protected by Law not to be sued.

  19. You’re doing the Heebie jeebie shimmy shake yet again

    What is the part of the IRS tax code that you referred to on this thread?

    Where is the libel law break that you referred to on this thread?

    You refer to laws, which laws?

  20. And Michéal O’Leary is right.

    The Irish put up with it years ago.

  21. Wrong thread.

    Much Apology..

  22. “Facebook, twitter, etc are protected from being suid for the content that is put on their platforms by a clause that says they are not editors and therefore have no control over their content.”

    As is David Vance. However he still reserves the right to delete or ban those he doesn’t want to have on his site.

    “So Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, rightwing scholars, lawyers and the laws themselves those are sources you don’t agree with so it’s a lie or a conspiracy”

    What law says that those who don’t edit or moderate the content on their site are unable to delete or ban those they don’t want on their site?

  23. To be painfully clear, Facebook and probably the others does publish a certain amount of their own content on their own website

    They’ve always done a certain amount of that

    It’s only that the huge majority of content on their site Is produced by somebody else ( Millions of members of the general public )

    This entire line of argument by the right wing appears ridiculous, preposterous, not thought out

  24. If a left wing President, and or left wing commentator, suggested controlling content on a private company’s website then every second word out of Patrick’s mouth would be “Marxist”.

  25. As is David Vance. However he still reserves the right to delete or ban those he doesn’t want to have on his site.

    And if David had a Billion people writing on this cite if then hired me to review every post delete the ones I don’t agree with and put red flags on every comment that didn’t support my political beliefs you don’t think that would be a problem ? or violate Free Speech ?

    It may not in the backwater of the British Isles and the shithole of Europe, over here it’s the the 1st Amendment and companies that have been granted special protections under the provision that they are NOT editors of that content.

    This battle over here in the world where we have kept the god given right to say whatever we want especially about politics has been to hold google, twitter, facebook, youtube and others to their commitment or remove the Lawsuit protection.

    Now I don’t like Pam Geller, but this post by her explains and names the Law for the maroons in the bubble The basis of our suit was challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) under the First Amendment, which provides immunity from lawsuits to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, thereby permitting these social media giants to engage in government-sanctioned censorship and discriminatory business practices free from legal challenge.

    The Urgent Case for Legislation against Facebook and Google
    By Pamela Geller
    Having been one of the early targets of social media censorship on Facebook, YouTube et al, I have advocated for anti-trust action against these bullying behemoths. It is good to see establishment outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and National Review coming to the same conclusion, or at least asking the same questions.

    Just this week, Facebook launched its latest of many attacks on my news site, the Geller Report. It labeled my site as “spam” and removed every Geller Report post — thousands upon thousands of them, going back years – from Facebook. It also blocked any Facebook member from sharing links to the Geller Report. The ramping up of the shutting-down of sites like mine is neither random nor personal. The timing is telling. The left is gearing up for the 2018 midterm elections, and they mean to shut down whatever outlet or voice that helped elect President Trump, the greatest upset in left-wing history.

    In fighting this shutdown, we had to go back to the drawing board in our lawsuit against these social media giants. The basis of our suit was challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) under the First Amendment, which provides immunity from lawsuits to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, thereby permitting these social media giants to engage in government-sanctioned censorship and discriminatory business practices free from legal challenge.

    Facebook and Google take in roughly half of all Internet ad revenue. According to the Wall Street Journal:

    In the U.S., Alphabet Inc.’s Google drives 89% of internet search; 95% of young adults on the internet use a Facebook Inc. product; and Amazon.com Inc. now accounts for 75% of electronic book sales. Those firms that aren’t monopolists are duopolists: Google and Facebook absorbed 63% of online ad spending last year; Google and Apple Inc. provide 99% of mobile phone operating systems; while Apple and Microsoft Corp. supply 95% of desktop operating systems.

    Both companies routinely censor and spy on their customers, “massaging everything from the daily news to what we should buy.” In the last century, the telephone was our “computer,” and Ma Bell was how we communicated. That said, would the American people (or the government) have tolerated AT&T spying on our phone calls and then pulling our communication privileges if we expressed dissenting opinions? That is exactly what we are suffering today.

    Ma Bell was broken up by the government, albeit for different reasons. But it can and should be done.

    It’s not a little ironic that, according to Breitbart:

    AT&T has called for an “Internet Bill of Rights” and argued that Facebook and Google should also be subjected to rules that would prevent unfair censorship on their platforms.

    AT&T, one of the largest telecommunications companies, called for Congress to enact an “Internet Bill of Rights” which would subject Facebook, Google, and other content providers to rules that would prevent unfair censorship on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Comcast or AT&T as well as content providers such as Facebook and Google.

    AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson wrote, “Congressional action is needed to establish an ‘Internet Bill of Rights’ that applies to all internet companies and guarantees neutrality, transparency, openness, non-discrimination and privacy protection for all internet users.”

    Stephenson posted the ad in the New York Times, Washington Post, and other national news outlets on Wednesday.

    We must get behind this — all of us — and fast. Because what is happening is being engineered at the government level. A chief officer from a major American communications company went to the terror state of Pakistan to assure the Pakistani government that Facebook would adhere to the sharia. The commitment was given by Vice President of Facebook Joel Kaplan, who called on Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. “Facebook has reiterated its commitment to keep the platform safe and promote values that are in congruence with its community standards.”

    Why the block? Because under Islamic law, you cannot criticize Islam. Facebook adhering to the most extreme and brutal ideology on the face of the earth should trouble all of us, because Mark Zuckerberg has immense power. He controls the flow of information.

    Early last year, I wrote: “The US government has used anti-trust laws to break up monopolies. They ought to break up Facebook. Section 2 of the Sherman Act highlights particular results deemed anticompetitive by nature and prohibits actions that ‘shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.’ Couldn’t the same be applied to information? The United States government took down Standard Oil, Alcoa, Northern Securities, the American Tobacco Company and many others without nearly the power that Facebook has.”

    NRO has come to that same conclusion:

    Tech companies such as Google and Facebook are also utilities of sorts that provide essential services. They depend on the free use of public airwaves. Yet they are subject to little oversight; they simply make up their own rules as they go along. Antitrust laws prohibit one corporation from unfairly devouring its competition, capturing most of its market, and then price-gouging as it sees fit without fear of competition. Google has all but destroyed its search-engine competitors in the same manner that Facebook has driven out competing social media.

    Clearly Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt, and Jeff Bezos are contemporary “robber barons.” So why are they not smeared, defamed, and reviled like the robber barons of yesteryear? Says NRO:

    Why are huge tech companies seemingly exempt from the rules that older corporations must follow? First, their CEOs wisely cultivate the image of hipsters. The public sees them more as aging teenagers in T-shirts, turtlenecks, and flip-flops than as updated versions of J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, or other robber barons of the past. Second, the tech industry’s hierarchy is politically progressive.

    In brilliant marketing fashion, the Internet, laptops, tablets, and smartphones have meshed with the hip youth culture of music, television, the movies, universities, and fashion. Think Woodstock rather than Wall Street. Corporate spokesmen at companies such as Twitter and YouTube brag about their social awareness, especially on issues such as radical environmentalism, identity politics, and feminism. Given that the regulatory deep state is mostly a liberal enterprise, the tech industry is seen as an ally of federal bureaucrats and regulators. Think more of Hollywood, the media, and universities than Exxon, General Motors, Koch Industries, and Philip Morris.

    The groovy t-shirt-turtleneck vibe may keep the great unwashed under their spell, but it’s the shared political ideology with the left that keeps these corporate managers free from accountability. The WSJ writes that antitrust regulators have a narrow test: Does their size leave consumers worse off? Surmising that if that’s the test, “there isn’t a clear case for going after big tech.”

    I disagree. The consumer is far worse off. If we are not free to speak and think in what is today’s Gutenberg press, than we could not be worse off.

    Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of The Geller Report and author of the bestselling book, FATWA: Hunted in America, as well as The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/the_urgent_case_for_legislation_against_facebook_and_google.html

  26. “It may not in the backwater of the British Isles and the shithole of Europe, over hear it’s the the 1st Amendment and companies that have been granted special protections under the provision that they are NOT editors of that content.”

    The 1st Amendment is irrelevant to the situation. Congress shall make no law. It has nothing to do with private companies.

    “And if David had a Billion people writing on this cite if then hired me to review every post delete the ones I don’t agree with and put red flags on every comment that didn’t support my political beliefs you don’t think that would be a problem ? or violate Free Speech ?”

    They don’t review every comment. They generally only review the ones that get complained about.

    And it doesn’t matter how many people use it. Either the principle is true or the principle is not true.

    “This battle over here in the world where we have kept the god given right to say whatever we want especially about politics has been to hold google, twitter, facebook, youtube and others to their commitment or remove the Lawsuit protection.”

    They don’t have a lawsuit protection. Show me one law that says that Google, or Twitter etc… have lawsuit protections.

  27. And if David had a Billion people writing on this cite if then hired me to review every post delete the ones I don’t agree with and put red flags on every comment that didn’t support my political beliefs you don’t think that would be a problem ? or violate Free Speech ?

    Is rejection of posts for ATW a violation of free speech?

  28. That law shields facebook etc from liability for things written by others, and which were never edited by facebook because facebook never saw them beforehand. There is nothing wrong with such a system.

    If I libel someone on facebook I can be sued since I was the one that wrote it, but facebook can’t, because they didn’t write it. In what world is that setup unfair to anyone?

    And we’re still waiting to see about the tax breaks that facebook supposedly gets from this arrangement.

  29. I believe that facebook etc absolutely can be sued for libel or copyright infringement if such things happen in articles that they themselves write.

    The critics of facebook here apparently have no idea how either facebook or the law works.

    facebook should face a lot of criticism, but they’re allowed to set the rules on their site.

    And if some jerk government changed the law so that facebook etc could be sued for an unmoderated comment, that revised law would create a new chilling of robust speech far more severe than what these guys are hollering about now.

  30. If they continue censoring people whose opinions and views they don’t like or putting red flags on those views and opinions they will lose that protection because that is considered editing and therefore makes them liable.

    Now you can stomp your feet and say I’m wrong, but the article above that cites multiple corporation including ones like the WSJ say you are wrong and I am right.

    You believe whatevever makes you comfortable in your bubble of ignorance.

  31. AT&T is an internet provider

    Facebook is basically a publication with millions of contributors

    These are two completely different businesses

    You should not tell anyone that they must publish something. That is on the face of it an attack on free speech, Not a defense of it

    An ISP Is doing the same thing at the old-fashioned phone company or that the US Postal Service does, Facebook In my experience is not like that at all.

    If you want to take away facebooks right to control its content, why not force Fox News, Limbaugh, and ATW To carry content that their owners find objectionable?

  32. Phantom these companies are not communication companies although they are given the protection as one due to the fact that the content is not of their creation.

    The second the flag it, block it, or present it in any form different than it was submitted or transmitted they become the owner of the content because they have exercised editorial rights and are therefore liable for the entire content.

    and the law suits will commence. This issue has been burning for a decade the only thing containing this dumpster fire is “political favor”.

  33. I don’t for a second believe that if you refuse to publish a post or refuse To publish an advertisement that you own those things

    I can’t see any judge on the face of the earth saying that this is so

    A large amount of Facebook content is in discussion groups. Each of those groups is controlled by an administrator. Each administrator sets the rules for that group. If you had your way, a Jewish prayer group within Facebook ( such groups exist ) Could not refuse to publish Holocaust denial material without being subject to lawsuits.

    The position you have taken is 100% against speech rights and 100% against property rights

  34. The companies were granted “special Status” as FREE SPEECH PLATFORMS if they don’t publish or Flag ANY PIECE (unless it calls for violence or breaks the law) they are acting as Editors and therefore are NOT free speech platforms and I personally know a dozen High Court Judges that would love to hear the cases.

    You’re wrong.

  35. “The companies were granted “special Status” as FREE SPEECH PLATFORMS if they don’t publish or Flag ANY PIECE (unless it calls for violence or breaks the law) they are acting as Editors and therefore are NOT free speech platforms and I personally know a dozen High Court Judges that would love to hear the cases.”

    Where were they granted special status? Show me the law.

  36. Should David be financially liable for everything said on ATW?

  37. The companies were granted “special Status” as FREE SPEECH PLATFORMS

    Where does it state that?

    Is rejection of posts for ATW a violation of free speech?

    ?