Posted on 02/24/2022 9:39:05 AM PST by John Semmens
Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube, praised "the informal cooperation that has enabled the government and our company to censor unacceptable ideas from being posted on our platform. However, the lack of a specific law specifying that it is legal for us to do this leaves our company liable to being sued. Knowing how big CYA is in government circles, they could always weasel out on the informal agreement and disavow any knowledge of our actions. Following former President Reagan's advice 'to trust, but verify,' we'd appreciate it if Congress could formalize the relationship by passing a law that legitimizes it."
Presidential Press Secretary Jen Psaki expressed sympathy "for Wojcicki's dilemma," but said "other priorities come first. Like the Mission Impossible introduction, You Tube, Facebook, Twitter must bear the risk as a matter of patriotism. The President and the federal government must always have the option to deny any knowledge of, much less approval for, the unconstitutional suppression of freedom of speech that occurs on their platforms. These businesses have huge financial resources with which to pay damages and must trust that the President will pardon them if any prison sentences are handed out for their illegal actions."
If you missed any of the other Semi-News/Semi-Satire posts you can find them at...
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,462466.0.html
This isn’t satire, this is what big tech is actually doing. If you’ve seen the millions of Facebook commercials on streaming asking for “regulation,” this is what they mean - regulations to codify their censorship.
Note this is not about the ability to not publish materials like porn or real threats against others.
The laws already exist for that, as a publisher you are entitled to refuse such materials, they do not want to be labeled publishers though because you are libel for ANYTHING you publish then.
What they want is the ability to censor the voices of anyone the disagree with will still pushing the porn and revolutionary crap they agree with. The was a legal protection to publish lies and censor all dissent.
Legal notice like the one FR has at the bottom of this page covers most potential trouble. The problem they’re having would be gone by NOT indulging in censoring ideas the Occupying Regime disapproves of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.