Replies

They want us gone and in electronic ghettos like Parler.

Stop using YouTube, Twitter and Google.

These companies depend on massive user bases to sell advertising. If you don’t like their policies and practices go elsewhere and pursued others to do the same.

Parler will get better as more people move to the site.

‘Vote with your feet’ as the saying goes. You don’t want the government choosing the winners and losers.

If we go that way the only thing that happens is that we get fewer choices and eventually the Marxist win after all it is Big Government that they really want.

This nation is on a slippery slope these days. What began as "political correctness" is fast evolving into restrictions on speech, published works and just about anything someone finds offensive on the Internet.

We are all on the defensive and it shouldn't be that way. For those of us who survived the 1960s and remember it, all the speech codes, official censorship and disinviting certain individuals from planned appearances at (mostly state-supported) colleges and universities represents a 180-degree shift on the part of left-wing activists who were then clamoring for "free speech" to denounce this country's military venture in Viet-Nam.

Members of Congress, to my knowledge, still have blanket immunity for anything they say on the floor of Congress. They can make things up, tell out-and-out lies, slander their opponents, constituents and the President with zero proof and have no fear of prosecution.

Publishers must always worry about lawsuits, as should authors. It is a very litigious age we are in. It doesn't appear to be getting any better.

I'd like to say that YouTube--regardless of who "owns" it--should have the authority to allow or disallow certain content, just as Jim Robinson can and does limit what FReepers may post here.

True, one's a business and the other less so (until Jim get a bee in his bonnet and takes advertising on FreeRepublic--let's hope not!).

In either case, however, certain standards must be maintained to protect the owners and users from lawsuits and (worst case, but it could happen here just as it has in other "democracies" such as neighboring Canada) government seizure of facilities, files and product, along with criminal charges arising from "hate speech" and its close cousins as interpreted by certain gummint authorities whose livelihood relies on expanding the penumbra surrounding such.

And, of course there are a great many private, tax-exempt,organizations on the prowl for evil-doers. If they don't have the manpower (oh, excuse my sexist slip--that would be "human resources"--sorry!) to bring the cretins to justice themselves, they have no compunction about publishing slanderous complaints and forwarding them to their supporters to stir the pot and maybe rake in some guilt bucks.

We've seen this type of fund-raising before. What is especially irritating, though, is when a self-described "civil rights" group achieves status as whistle-blower among local, state and federal law-enforcement agencies.

I have in mind the SPLC as Example #1. Here is how they define Stefan Molyneux on their web site:

A libertarian internet commentator and alleged cult leader who amplifies "scientific racism," eugenics and white supremacism to a massive new audience, Stefan Molyneux operates within the racist so-called “alt-right” and pro-Trump ranks.

Now, I am not a hard-core fan of Dr. Molyneux having watched just one of his YouTube commentaries several years back. But I did on occasion read some of his articles in Liberty, in the late '90s, and found his writing stimulating.

Attitudes change over time, of course. I was a long-time subscriber to National Review until Buckley and his wrecking crew came down hard on Joe Sobran and Patrick Buchanan. Frank Meyer must be rolling in his grave.)

I suspect there will be another opportunity for Mr. Molyneux just as there was for Alex Jones and others who are currently unknown to the masses.

We need to remove obstacles to free discussion, though. I'm afraid we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg in the present case.