But is it legal for him to do so on orders from Senator Kamala Harris?ĭefending abusive behavior like that is a desecration of the free market. It might, arguably, be legal for your landlord to kick you out of your house because he doesn’t like the fact that you’re a Republican. What’s the difference between that and a totalitarian state? But do they really want to argue that Senate Democrats should have the right to compel private companies to censor conservatives? ![]() ![]() When Facebook deletes conservatives in response to threats of regulatory action from Senate Democrats, its censors are acting as government agents while engaging in viewpoint discrimination.įree market conservatives can argue that Facebook should have the right to discriminate against conservatives. That’s not the voluntary behavior of private companies. ![]() It’s been commented on supportively by powerful Clinton allies in the tech industry, like Eric Schmidt, the former chairman of Google.ĭot coms like Facebook are cracking down on conservatives as an explicit response to pressure from elected government officials. Poynter runs the International Fact Checking Network, which had been empowered by Facebook and other sites to deplatform conservative content through its ‘fact checks’.Īll of this got underway in response to claims by Hillary Clinton and her allies that “fake news” had cost her the election and represented a grave attack on our democracy. The call was quickly taken up by Democrats in the House and the Senate. The recent Poynter list of “unreliable” sites was stacked with conservative sites. It was originally known as “fake news” before President Trump hijacked the term to refer to the media. “Misinformation” is a well-known euphemism among Democrats and the media for conservative political content. Senator Kamala Harris offered an example of that in a recent speech where she declared that she would “hold social media platforms accountable” if they contained “hate” or “misinformation”. The driving force behind the censorship of conservatives isn’t a handful of tech tycoons. The talking point that Google, Facebook and Twitter are private companies that can discriminate as they please on their private platforms, and that the First Amendment doesn’t apply, is in the air everywhere. “These private enterprises are not obligated to abide any sort of partisan fairness doctrine.” “The same goes for the president’s attacks on Google and the complaints of conservative censorship,” Diane Katz writes at the Heritage Institute. You also agree to this site’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Take our poll – story continues below Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. He argues that “Twitter is a private company” and that “there is no positive right to free speech on Twitter or any other private venue.” In a FOX Business editorial, Iain Murray writes that breaking up dot coms like Google would be “a repudiation of conservative principles”. The big dot com monopolies created their own companies, didn’t they? And we wouldn’t want government regulation of business. ![]() Bring up the problem of Google, Facebook and Twitter suppressing conservative speech and many conservatives will retort that it’s a free market. Editor’s Note: I confess this is one of the best arguments I’ve heard on this subject.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |