Posted on 08/09/2018 10:14:52 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
This is a dangerous precedent that can be used against any ideology, left or right
Across the board in what appears to be a highly-coordinated effort to silence the message behind Infowars and Alex Jones, most major social media, backbone utilities associated with our web site and video platforms have launched unprecedented account bans and suspensions on virtually all of our channels.
Regardless of what you think of me, and what you have heard indirectly through third-party sources, you are clearly witnessing a 21st century purge of an ideology.
And even if you don’t agree with our message that everyone should exercise their right to question the status quo, you should be very concerned about what’s happening.
Because this ideology that is now under attack is the same ideology that played a pivotal role in founding this great nation: challenging the establishment systems with independent ideas that encourage new debates and discussions.
For more than a year, we have witnessed the mainstream news media and Democratic groups tell us that the manipulation of social media could turn an election.
By their own admission, social media would be the most viable option to alter the course of the nation, influence millions of people, and shut down free speech and personal expression that questions the status quo.
We have been told that one of the greatest threats to our democracy is the manipulation of the information that we receive on social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.
Now, these same groups that have been telling us that free speech must be defended against those who seek to control it on our news feeds, have launched a full-scale war on the free speech and information that they disagree with.
There is no question that large social media companies have become the nation’s premiere source of information, referring hundreds of millions to news and information.
Although these groups are private entities, their scale has achieved them a monopoly on the free flow of information.
Much like the FCC rules that the airwaves and cable should be equally accessible to all in the public trust, these modes of communication should be equally open to the same access, and not subject to control by those who may choose to disagree with the information itself. Is a different opinion enough to silence an entire ideology?
I do not claim to always be right. But the accusations leveled at me are distortions of the truth and have been used systematically to impeach my character.
But this coordinated action by the establishment to silence me has only awakened a new resolve in those who now see more clearly than ever how the establishment systems will go to any length to shut down free speech and information that questions the status quo.
This is a turning point for our nation. Will you rally behind the principles of free speech, or will you concede to having your ability to access new ideas and information restricted and controlled by those who believe you cannot think for yourself?
If we allow this level of censorship to continue, how long before it becomes normalized?
How long before it’s not Alex Jones and Infowars being shut down on major platforms, but any ideology that disagrees with the establishment status quo? We must rally behind the principles that founded this great nation, and not allow deep censorship to become normalized and accepted.
Thank you sir for taking principled decision.
You are right.
Conservative sites and voices are next to be censored.
Does anyone really believe Google’s new internet censorship actions (website blacklist firewall) are going to be limited to only China’s users?
Do people here remember, Obama had all internet website domain name control transferred away from USA control to foreign interests...
In effect, a selective website internet kill switch is in place and waiting use.
https://theintercept.com/2018/08/08/google-censorship-china-blacklist/
Please explain how the effect of YouTube’s decision to ban Alex Jones and InfoWars due views/opinions/theories YouTube did not want on its website differs from that of FR’s decision to ban Alex Jones/InfoWars content from FR due to views/opinions/theories it did/does not want on FR?
Regardless of motivation or rationale, haven’t YouTube and FR, based on separate, independent objections to views/opinions/theories, each silenced Alex Jones/Infowars to the extent AJ/IW seek a voice on the YT and FR websites?
Or perhaps, motivation makes one permissible, the other criminal? Peace, A
I appreciate your concern for discretion here Jim. Alex Jones is much like the National Enquirer used to be. 50% of it was nonsense and 50% was spot on but not everyone could always figure out which was which.
This is far beyond ‘crappy’. This is war by other means.
YouTube and fakebook are defacto monopolies in their sectors. Based on that they need to be regulated by Congress - and their political bias ended.
Bingo!
I remember you and I warned many folks what was bound to happen when website domain name control was transferred from USA control to foreign interests.
Selective website internet kill switch in place.
Plus this waiting use for any government:
https://theintercept.com/2018/08/08/google-censorship-china-blacklist/
Sort of.
If Trump wants to have a completely personal Twitter account he can do that and ban anyone he wants.
The problem is he uses @realDonaldTrump for official government business and has staff, paid by the taxpayers, maintain and tweet from the account.
The judge says this essentially makes it public and he can't ban comments on 1st Amendment grounds.
fb, twitter, youtube, apple, et al, all claim to be open platforms open to anyone and everyone.
FR has a more narrowly defined purpose and goals.
FR is open to conservatives and conservative activists. And even narrower than that, FR is open to pro-God (our one true Judeo-Christian God), pro-life, pro-family, pro-America, pro-constitution, pro-gun, pro-borders, constitutionally limited-government conservative patriots.
Marxists, fascists, antifascists (antifa who, in fact, are actually fascists), communists, totalitarians, anarchists, socialists, national socialists, democrat socialists, liberals, progressives, mass murderers, baby murderers, abortionists, homosexualists, globalists, glowbull warming hoaxers, open-borders pushers, amnesty pimps, God-haters, Jew-haters, anti-Semites, big government pushers, gun grabbers, border jumpers, criminals, racists, revolutionists, callers for violence, democrats, rinos, establishment GOPers (but I repeat myself) are not welcome on FR.
Basically we are conservative activists desiring a Judeo-Christian revival for our society and a complete restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government and a restoration of all of our God-given unalienable rights.
Those who wish to oppose us and or work against our goals are perfectly free to do so—elsewhere.
In other words, we have a stated purpose and it’s fairly well defined. We are open to those who wish to help us achieve our goals, and those who fit the bill do not mind our policy restrictions (no profanity, no racism, no personal attacks, no violence, abide by and respect our God, family, country ideals) because it’s their natural behavior anyway. That’s why they’re attracted to us in the first place.
PEOPLE: It is worth noting that Fakebook CENSORS any mention of a website, www.CodeIsFreeSpeech.com that provides FREE downloads of 3D-printable firearm blueprints. And, since Facebook logins are so prevalent for posting commentary across the Internet, they are very effectively suppressing this “Forbidden knowledge”. Please go to the website, download some or all 10 of the free blueprints, and then, repost it to your friends and across the Internet, to the extent you can. Strike a BLOW against Fakebook and judicial CENSORSHIP! Support TWO amendments at once, the First and the Second!
The difference is that YouTube and facebook are defacto monopolies in their sectors.
Would someone explain to me how it is that a baker, a photographer, a pizza parlor are all required to serve all customers because they are “open for business” under the public accommodation laws, but FB,Apple,etc., can refuse to serve Alex Jones. Are they not subject to the public accommodation laws?
This is a serious question, not a comment on the apparent hypocrisy of the situation. Tell me what I’m missing, or what I don’t understand.
Glad to see this here. We will stand together or hang separately.
I would pray that FR become so powerful that this would be a valid comparison...
Thank you Jim. I am not an Alex Jones fan, but some of his guests are like us and there is useful information on Infowars occasionally, if you distill it.
Not quite.
Just like FR, anyone can register and use the platforms provided they don't post things the owner doesn't want on the site.
Sure, your list of unacceptable views may be longer and more explicit, but all of those other services have the same right to exclude views they don't like that you do.
I'm not arguing that it's right, just saying that it will be very hard to come up with a standard that restrains them but not FR.
These are monopolized forums in which the public communicates, and they designed it to be so.
Some services removed some Alex Jones articles and videos based on their principles of standards of conduct or content. But banning Jones completely would support your argument. I don't think they should be able to ban him completely.
And to think we never thought it would happen. I read 1984 in actual 1984 and had no conceivable notion that America would be like this. We cannot afford to lose Free Republic and other valuable conservative platforms. They are essential to the cause and the left knows this. If the left shuts us down like China, Iran or North Korea, we will become powerless under the 1st. Amendment as the 2nd. is being attacked as well.
Exactly where it’s all heading. We are moving further toward their first goal of silencing anyone to the right of Rosie O’Donnell. Of course if silencing us out of the public forum doesn’t do it, they will plan more “drastic” action. The war cometh.
“Can AT&T turn off my phones because of my free speech”
I think the obligation to provide service should depend not on whether the company is providing an essential public service, but rather should depend on whether it is benifiting from government enforced monopoly.
A privately owned bakery should be able to refuse to bake a same sex wedding cake if they wish (or refuse service to anyone for any reason). This is only fair - if buyers can decide when, whether and from whom to purchase, then why shouldn’t sellers be able to decide when, whether and to whom to sell?
Similarly, a telephone service should be abie to refuse service to anyone for any reason assuming it is truly private. However, I would argue that AT&T is not truly private - to the extent that utilities are regulated, and access to the market is granted by government in exchange for regulatory compliance, licence restrictions and fee structures, a compliant utility is essentially benifiting from government enforced monopoly and protected from compitition from competitors who can’t comply.
This is why they should not be allowed to withhold services, NOT because the services are deem “essential public services”.
In a free enterprise economy, free of government subsidies and regulatory interference, all transactions should be between willing participants - either party should be entirely free to enter into the transaction, or not, regardless of the nature of the service or product being exchanged. Pastries, telephone services, medicine, electricity - it makes no difference - both parties should be free to make the exchange or refuse to make the exchange, for any reason.
Only in a government regulated industry should the government have any grounds for forcing utilities to provide service.
But that begs the question “Should any industries be regulated?”
I say no, but I’m not a fan of government.
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.