To the surprise of exactly no one, Twitter has permanently banned President Trump.
After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.https://t.co/CBpE1I6j8Y
— Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) January 8, 2021
And now Google blocks messaging app Parler from its store. Parler does not censor people, and was created precisely because Twitter and Facebook do censor people they don’t like . . . which primarily means conservatives.
Google has blocked the messaging and social network app Parler from its store.
The company cited the “urgent public safety threat” in restricting the app, touted as a free-speech alternative.
Google said in a statement that it reminded Parler in recent months of its policies requiring apps with user-generated content to remove “egregious content like posts that incite violence.”
A Google spokesperson told reports in a statement that the app is being suspended until it addresses issues.
Apple is threatening to do the same thing.
Sadly, as my good friend William Teach noted, Parler is kind of a joke:
#parler is really still an f'ing failure. Can't log in on laptop, won't move past sign in screen. Took like 5 times to get in on new phone, shows zero content. If they're trying to make a place for conservatives, they suck
— WilliamTeach2 (Parler – Wteach) (@WTeach2) January 9, 2021
The best thing about this is that either Parler will be forced to upgrade its software and site, or something else will replace it.
I’m old enough to remember the Free Speech Movement, a movement of the left. Now, the left hate the freedom of speech, or at least they hate it for people other than themselves.
And on Jan. 20th we enter a new Dark Period of US History with the Far Radical Left taking over. Watch your back Joe because Brutus is near you at all times.
Check this?? Do not have the full pedigree. #italydidit
Dana all this time you’ve been excusing private businesses and private individuals from stealing our God given Constitutional rights based on the premise that the Constitution only applies to government restrictions. Well, of course it does. The Founders never cams across businesses or individuals who would deny human rights to people so it never crossed their minds/
Now we have an entire, and very important and powerful segment of our society, social platforms, which now have the power to censor the President of the United States with no fear of lawful reprisal. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. Nobody elects private companies or individuals to control society therefore, they should have ZERO power to deny ANY and ALL God given or Constitutional rights to any individual. That includes free speech, RTKABA, free association and all the rest.
We are now being ruled by Jack Dorsey, Mark Fukerberg and Bill Gates. Ain’t Freedom great?
Im not remembering Dana doing anything you allege, now is the time to take the senate back and especially the house. We need to primary Murkowski, force the West Virginia Legislature to threaten to impeach Manchin (they have that power one of the few states to retain that – its a high bar) We need to take the Nevada Senate seat, and retake a seat in Virginia. We need to compete in the Mass senate races and we need to gain state houses we have a good chance of taking back Virginia and New Jersey. Time to go to war one precinct at a time.
“In what some consider one of the most far-reaching social policy moves in the corporate world, the National Association of Realtors, called the nation’s largest trade organization, has revised its professional ethics code to ban “hate speech and harassing speech” by its 1.4 million members.
The sweeping prohibition applies to association members 24/7, covering all communication, private and professional, written and spoken, online and off. Punishment could top out at a maximum fine of $15,000 and expulsion from the organization.”
“The dam has broken and other organizations will look at this,” predicted Robert Föehl, a professor of business ethics and business law at Ohio University.
“If this is good for real estate agents, why not attorneys, why not doctors?” Föehl said. “They’re going to be pressured to do what NAR has done. And that pressure is going to be very real, because what organization wants to argue they should allow hate speech by their members?”
A week after the association approved the ban, its president, Charlie Oppler, profusely apologized for NAR’s historic role in housing discrimination and redlining, the former practice of denying loans to buyers in certain neighborhoods based on their race, during an online fair-housing summit. NAR is still a predominantly white organization, where African Americans account for just 6% of members.
NAR’s hate speech policy is noteworthy because it sweeps up 1.4 million people under an ethics standard that explicitly places limits on private speech, to be adjudicated through formal procedures. The organization’s new policy provides an avenue for the NAR to investigate, fine – and potentially expel – real estate agents who insult, threaten or harass people or social groups based on race, sex, gender or other legally protected characteristics.
I’m shocked, SHOCKED to see that a mind like Dana’s didn’t realize when the door is opened it’s opened for ALL. And guess who gets to decide what is “hate speech”?
As the jaws of corrupt leftist America slowly turns into a robust Nazi-like or Soviet type power you will all see what happens when non-moral atheists and anti white racist bigots are allowed to determine law and language. Soon being white, Christian or conservatives will be “Hate” and we will all be doxxed from owning everything or working etc. Watch and learn.
If I asked you one year ago if this type of censorship could happen here you’d have laughed at me. Ain’t laughin now are ya?
The National Association of Realtors is a private organization, meaning that they can set standards for members. But realtors were already subject to state licensing regulations; a realtor who discriminated on the basis of race was risking a criminal conviction.
The question becomes: what is private speech, and what is business communication? A realtor who said, “I hate [insert accredited victim group here]” to his fishing buddies, none of whom was buying a house from him, is protected speech. If he said the same thing while showing a house to a potential buyer, even in terms of saying, “you don’t need to worry about having [insert accredited victim group here] as neighbors if you buy this house,” would be running afoul of state laws.
One thing I have noted, very disapprovingly, is that businesses in New York City can be fined up to $250,000 if one of their employees
refers to a customer by his biological sex rather than his delusionary one“misgenders” a customer. To me, that’s very different. Laws prohibiting discrimination are one thing — not that I approve of such laws in the first place — but the NYC regulations require employees to actually lie.First amendment freedom of speech can only be violated by a government—federal, state, municipal etc. Not by Twitter or Facebook. “But the Founding Father’s never envisioned the Internet and the monopoly these companies have”, you say. Well they also never envisioned the modern weapons that are now being protected by the fourth amendment.
The problem is that we have blurred the lines between private entities and government. AT&T is a private company, and certainly not a monopoly, given the existence of Verizon, T-Mobile and others, but it doesn’t take much imagination to know what would happen if AT&T decided it would not provide service to a particular customer because they didn’t like his race, citizenship or political positions.
More, President Trump was sued, successfully, because he blocked someone from his @realDonaldTrump Twitter account, claiming that the President was using it for official communications, and in blocking the plaintiff, he was denying the plaintiff access to government information.
And now the incoming President has said that he wants to make several changes, to improve 5G internet access, and has concerns — though different ones from President Trump — over Section 230. The government is entangling itself more and more into internet service providers, just as states have concerning public utilities.
This is hardly a surprise: the federal government redefined some private businesses as “public accommodations” back in the 1960s, making them subject to civil rights laws, holding that a privately-owned diner could not deny service to someone due to his race.
Mr Hatfield wrote:
I have said to those who have ridiculously claimed that the Second Amendment protects only muskets that, in that case, the First Amendment’s freedom of speech and the press protects only quill pens and paper, or newspapers printed using hand-set type.
If Twitter had banned him the first year of his presidency, 5 people might still be alive.
Tell the truth, Sharon: you would have wanted Twitter to ban him in 2015, before he won the presidency, in the hope that it would have kept him from being elected in the first place.
But if Twitter and Facebook had banned leftists, perhaps last summers #BlackLivesMatter riots would not have occurred, or been as destructive as they were. There are plenty of possible scenarios up with which we could come.
I can think of lots of things that could be restricted that might have resulted in better outcomes, but, darn it all, there’s that pesky Bill of Rights in the way.
Supposedly — though we can’t really trust information from the People’s Republic — China has done an excellent job dealing with what my good friend William Teach calls the Bat Soup Virus, and maybe that’s true. All we’d have to do is give up our liberty to achieve that.
All I can say Dana is that what I see happening is the government is “outsourcing” illegal censorship to it’s private allies. What if all the banks and credit card companies decide to ban gun manufacturers and sales businesses? Is that legal too?
At this point the tech billionaires are doing for the Democrat Party what the Democrat Party is Constitutionally forbidden to do for itself. AND THEY’RE GETTING AWAY WITH IT!!!!!
Pingback: No, no attack on #FreedomOfSpeech at all! – THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.