- Republicans’ first order of business this coming 118th Congress must be to introduce a legislative firewall between the White House — and its offshoot federal law enforcement agencies such as the Department of Justice and its offshoot, the FBI — and private social media companies.
- The dissemination of news and the facilitation of public discourse is central in any democracy that allows genuine participation on the part of its citizens. Open public dialogue is a “public good”, or something which, like clean air, benefits everyone equally and greatly.
- Providers of public goods are generally regulated under common carriage laws. The Communications Act of 1934, for instance, allowed AT&T to enjoy monopolistic power over the public good it provided: the interconnecting of the American people by way of a unified, national standard for telephone communication.
- In exchange for enjoying monopoly power, and to ensure that public goods truly remain beneficial to the public, special duties or restraints are generally imposed on such companies.
- With companies such as Compuserve and AOL in mind, Congress sought to hand out special liability relief with the idea of promoting two public goods: an internet characterized by a wide dissemination and diversity of ideas; and an incentive system for platforms to create family-friendly environments.
- Unfortunately, in the ensuing case law that has been built up in dealing with Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, two giant, related problems have emerged, both involving a misreading of a landmark court decision: Zeran v. AOL.
- The first problem is that what Congress intended when it comes to protecting social media companies from liability tied to defamatory messages posted on their platforms has been greatly expanded and now encompasses virtually any and all decisions regarding “content moderation”, such as removing the accounts of epidemiologists with whom Dr. Anthony Fauci, the FBI, CIA, and possibly other federal agencies, might disagree.
- The second problem is that the “good faith” condition Congress imposed on these companies to ensure against arbitrary or biased content-removal decisions has been completely erased. It is now never applied to social media companies at all.
- Both problems can be traced to a misunderstanding and incomplete reading of Zeran v. AOL.
- As a result, as Michigan State University law professor and former Commerce Department telecom official Adam Candeub writes, “social media platforms are now treated like they’re above the law.”
- Thankfully, this can be easily changed, even at the regulatory level. Non-discrimination policies need not create a “wild west” scenario. To a large extent, people really do not need moderators to curate what they see on social media. They are free to do that themselves.
- Removing the distortive “curators”, editors, “fact-checkers” and middlemen from the information process — and reaching people who previously have been sheltered from diverse opinions — will likely not tear people apart. It might even help to bridge misunderstandings and fill in a few gaps. That, perhaps, is the ultimate public good.https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19261/big-tech-censorship
Freedom of speech
All posts tagged Freedom of speech
‘Last year, the VSRF produced the first explanation of the consortium behind the unprecedented Corporate Media and Big Tech censorship surrounding COVID, elections, and any topic that the countered the government narrative.
We review the latest news like these stories and host special guests each Thursday at 7pm EST on the VSRF Weekly Update with Founder Steve Kirsch. Join us! Register: https://www.VacSafety.org
The VSRF’s mission is to advance COVID-19 vaccine safety through scientific research, public education, and advocacy, and to support the vaccine injured. https://www.vacsafety.org/‘
‘A Norwegian woman is under investigation by authorities in Norway and is facing criminal charges and possible prison time for saying that men cannot be lesbians.
If charged and convicted, artist Tonje Gjevjon, who is herself a lesbian, could face up to three years in prison.
On November 17, Gjevjon was told that she was being investigated by the police over allegations of “hate speech.”
She came under investigation over a Facebook post that criticized men who said they were lesbians.
Gjevjon has faced intense pushback for publicly standing up for women’s rights.
In her post, she also criticized transgender activists who try to prosecute women for refusing to comply with “woke” gender ideology.
“It’s just as impossible for men to become lesbian as it is for men to become pregnant,” Gjevjon wrote.
“Men are men regardless of their sexual fetishes.”
In the post, translated to English by Facebook, Gjevjon wrote, “men with fetishes have been protected as a vulnerable minority through the foolish and constructed concept of gender identity is koko. [sic]”
Gjevjon said she posted her Facebook message on purpose to bring attention to Norway’s hate speech law.
The law was changed in 2020 when the country’s parliament voted to outlaw speech against people who identify as transgender.
Gjevjon is also not the first to be confronted with charges over saying men cannot be lesbians or mothers.
Last year, Gjevjon asked Anette Trettebergstuen, a politician in the Labour Party, what she was going to do to safeguard the rights of women and girls.
She also asked if she thought that men could be lesbians.
“I believe it is absolutely necessary to place biological sex as the basis in all contexts where sex has legal, cultural, or practical relevance, and that equating sex with gender identity has harmful, discriminatory consequences for women and girls – especially lesbians,” Gjevjon said in her question.
“Will the Equality Minister take action to ensure that lesbian women’s human rights are safeguarded, by making it clear that there are no lesbians with penises, that males cannot be lesbians regardless of their gender identity, and by tidying up the mess of the harmful gender policies left behind by the previous government?” She asked.
Trettebergstuen replied, “I do not share an understanding of reality where the only two biological sexes are to be understood as sex.
“Gender identity is also important.”
Gjevjon has also described being pushed out of the art community over her views, even though she was a prominent member of the music and art establishment for over 15 years.
“I have stated that women are female, that lesbians do not have penises, that children should not be responsible for decisions they do not have the capacity to understand the scope of, and that no-platforming is harmful to democracy,” Gjevjon wrote in Klassekampen, a Norwegian outlet.
“For these opinions, I have been canceled several times.
“I was not prepared for the extent of how queer organizations, politicians, and activists would demonize a lesbian artist who was not in step.
“Trans activists contact people I work with, portraying me as hateful and warning against being associated with me,” she said.’
‘The Central Bank of Nigeria announced it will begin, effective in January, restricting cash withdrawals from banks and ATMs to just $45 per day as part of a push to move the country toward a cashless economy.
If this were a one-off, I wouldn’t bother writing about it. But it comes on the heels of mega-banks announcing similarly creepy new policies in recent months in China, India, Russia, Brazil, Sweden, the U.S. and many other nations, all pointing to an imminent switch over to a global digital money system.’ To read the entire article go to https://leohohmann.com/2022/12/08/global-central-banks-racing-to-implement-digital-currencies-as-cities-convert-to-smart-infrastructure-track-and-control-grid-being-erected-right-under-our-noses/
whatyareckon 