The decision reaffirmed what the Supreme Court called the “bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment” in 1989: “that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
Historian Eric Daniels clarifies what free speech and censorship are in this inspiring talk.
The White House, the FBI, and the CDC violated the First Amendment by encouraging and coercing social media companies to suppress free speech.
The moral argument for defunding the CBC is the principle that people should not be forced to fund things they disagree with.
Crushing freedom of speech is an assault on the mind, and thus on life itself.
What people used to say about the CCP role in the management of TikTok applies fully in the US today with all the main tech companies.
Those who support a culture of reason should be rooting for Elon Musk’s Twitter to succeed.
Facebook’s vice president has admitted fact-checkers are not necessarily objective, and the company even acknowledged recently in a lawsuit that fact-check tags are “opinion,” not factual assertions.
At issue is whether and to what extent the government itself has had a hand in encouraging tech companies to squelch speech. If so, this is unconstitutional.
Forcing companies to allow content is the flip side of prohibiting them from expressing certain ideas. These are the two side of the censorship coin.
Social media companies are not a threat to free speech. Governments that do not respect property rights are.
Many will argue that Twitter and other tech companies censored Mr. Senger, Mr. Changizi, and Mr. Kotzin of their own volition, and as they are private actors, the First Amendment is inapplicable.
That argument should be rejected.
Elon Musk’s exciting and dramatic move represents a bold attempt to overthrow the regime of control, propaganda, and enforced opinion as manufactured by the administrative state.
Undereducated journalists have “fact checked” things they’re not qualified to understand, “misinformation” now seems to mean “words by anybody who disagrees with me.” With the Joe Rogan debacle, it all falls into place.
Assange was merely doing what the vast majority of the mainstream media has long since neglected: his job.
YouTube bans any video that contradicts pronouncements of the World Health Organization.
Should Facebook have a policy of removing “misinformation” in the first place?
Climate Feedback’s “fact-check” wasn’t about actual facts.
If we want a free and fair internet, we must respect the rights of tech companies.
While Prince Harry, some Senators, and the American people may be confused about the First Amendment, the founders were not.
Corporations cannot censor, only governments can.
YouTube abruptly deleted some of Louder with Crowder videos, blocked him from uploading new videos for a week and permanently demonetized his channel. “It means I can make $0 on YouTube,” he explains.
America has entered into a new era of thought control. What is being insisted upon now used to be known as tyranny and criticized as dictatorship.
Section 230 simply says that only internet users are responsible for what they write, not the private companies whose websites host the commenters. Secondly, it affirms what the First Amendment already implies—that private companies don’t have to host speech that violates their values.
Like this content? Subscribe to support our work — it's free.
Read by students, professors, and citizens, Capitalism Magazine provides over 9,000 free to read articles and essays from pro-reason, individual rights perspective. 100% independent.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.