I see one layer of objectively-sound proposals which are needed and necessary to rebuild.
But on another layer, where the reality of the extent of the opposition and its various tools to stifle practically any proposal, or introduce a counter-measure that holds it in check, people have to see the issue in a “non-intellectual” level
A level where deep in their hearts, they know exactly what is going to be the new paradigm, and how the inevitable suffering from the DS blowback will be a justified sacrifice
That is some good information to know. I didn’t realize what happened to make censorship so invasive in the last few years. I have a small conservative group on Next-door In Vancouver Washington and they have taken censorship to new levels.
I agree Jew’s have been our Allies since I can remember. I used to go to a Jewish community center when I was young because my Mother worked for National Jewish Center. It was a hospital in Denver Colo. All I can tell you I was an outsider to their culture and never felt like it. I still think they are a great people with good core Values. And of course some might not have those values but what society doesn’t.
It’s ridiculous to even have to consider such a law. Constitutionally, no branch of government- Legislative, Executive, or Judicial has the right to override the constitution or construe it to grant more power to the government than those privileges directly granted it by the original intent of the supreme law of the land.
We need to be assured that when we go on social media platforms what we say will not be removed.
It’s at the point if you are not backing the party Social Media platform dictators are backing…then they find issue with everything you post…and stalk you.
The government doesn’t like it when you’ve figured put what they are doing and they try silencing you.
Freedom of Speech should cover every single realm including social media…and the dictators of those social media platforms should be held accountable if what we say or how we say it is suppressed. There should be a fine lodged against them.
For example: Donald Trump was banned from Twitter per Kamala Harris, she even admitted. Donald Trump even had posts removed on Facebook by Zuckerburg and was also blocked by him.
I myself have had posts removed several times on Facebook, my account was also deleted twice on TikTok because I said Ass, Damn, or Shit. I am on my 3rd account. I’ve had posts removed because it did not show Kamala in a good light.
I am not the only one who has had their account deleted or posts removed…This must stop. There must penalties in place when a platform suppresses your voice.
In a normal society (not morally bankrupt), this would make sense, however we can all envision how something like this would be taken advantage of by the left, similar to how they’ve been using the courts to try and take legal advantage. There needs to be a opening for people to discuss notions that may be considered conspiracies I.e. misinformation, with a chance of actually being accurate.z example: any vaxxers used to be considered “flat earthers” but are slowly gaining the respect of more people of actually naive having a point. If they could be fined early on for misinformation, ideas like these could never be shared…
I appreciate the sentiment, but you’re fundamentally suggesting that yet another law will stop tyranny when the 1st Amendment to the Constitution itself has proven inadequate to the task.
We don’t need more laws. We need a president who will honor his oath of office to “support and defend” the Constitution. Such a president would cite Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and put a wrecking ball through the federal Leviathan. He would, on Inauguration Day, padlock and turn off electricity to every federal agency and program that doesn’t have a direct link to a specifically enumerated federal power. Doing so would eliminate ~90% of federal programs and agencies, and with them would go the censors.
BTW, the 14th Amendment was never ratified consistent with Constitutional requirements, and the power to regulate discrimination is not one We the People gave to the federal government. While I understand the sentiment and believe you have good intentions, your ‘solution’ to tweak unconstitutional law with more of the same is as illegitimate as the 1964 CRA itself.
Anything less than ending the illegitimate Deep State is a half-measure that, at best, will fail IMO.
My post regarding the FCC imposing fines for mainstream media when they intentionally post lies does not prevent individuals or investigative journalists from discussing conspiracy theory.
This proposal in no way weakens let alone tries to “replace” the First Amendment. On the contrary it seeks to apply First Amendment protections in areas defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as “public accommodation”.
We all need to remember that it was Biden that signed the bill to ban tiktok, a foreign owned company and it is Vice president Kamala who wants to ban X. Freedom of speech is gone it all goes and these two they’re like tag team in it. Vote responsibly!
PBS should not be allowed to just be another arm of the democratic propaganda machine and be allowed to LIE to the American People - WITH PUBLIC TAXPAYER FUNDS
GREAT POST! That said, it may be difficult as articulated. I would be very interested in your thoughts regarding my proposal that is a “spiritual brother” to what you have brought forward.
Death penalty ,maybe no. Perhaps a 10 or 20 year sentence in federal prison, no plea-bargain, no parole, in addition to lifetime disbarment from the bench and/or political/public office. That would bring self-awareness of civic service to the forefront in a most permanent fashion.
Great post, excellent work. However, expansion of the civil rights act doesn’t really solve the problem of targeted ideological suppression because companies basically have to have things like HR departments in order to prove they don’t have a discriminatory workplace in the event of a lawsuit. Being “discriminatory” is an incredibly vague and malleable term that favors the prosecutor. By the nature of these departments, they generally evolve into ideological outposts and patronage for far-left radicals and their agendas. Civil rights essentially guarantees that far-left ideologues can infiltrate any private organization and impose their agenda, at the threat of suing them over discrimination. The threat of discrimination lawsuits actually creates a more censored environment, not less.
This begs the question: Would it not just be better to eliminate the civil rights act altogether? America managed to function without it and have more free speech, not less, for over 150 years.
Simply reinact the Smith–Mundt Act 1948 U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 . This made propaganda by the GOV illegal in the U.S., as a response to how devastating it was to the German People during WWII. In 2012 some thought it would be a good ideas to let the State Dept. have the power to use propaganda against U.S. citizens. Undo Smith–Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. This is causing untold damage to the U.S. families.
