I do believe that we must address the social media conundrum and ensure a free press, but I think most people understand the breadth and scope of the problem as it pertains to transnational corporate conglomerates and their profit motives, which are eroding all of America’s institutions to their aims at the expense of our Bill of Rights.
Under US Constitutional law, the Bill of Rights applies primarily to the Government, but as we’ve seen these past four years, the Government has colluded behind the scenes with corporations to abridge our rights and the courts are not holding the government accountable, because business rights aren’t under the same legal constraints. THAT is the loophole we absolutely need to close.
I’m linking to my proposal again in this forum thread because we have to ensure that corporate power is checked in more ways than one - including the need to codify law that requires corporate adherence to the bill of rights just like the government is legally bound. In this modern era, corporate oligarchies can be more powerful than nation-state governments and they have clearly influenced policymaking, and corrupted state government functions including agencies meant to regulate them, so my proposal is an attempt to “nip this in the bud” so to speak, which would affect this whole problem top-down, free speech included.
The Civil Rights Act already protects people on the basis of creed (like Christianity or some socio-political philosophy like conservatism), or race (like white). The problem with it is enforcement.
You can pass as many laws as you want to, but if the basic enforcement mechanics are broken or mismanaged, then you will not get fair justice. The Civil Rights Act always protected white Christian conservatives as much as it protected non-white, non-Christian leftists (for example).
If you want to pass another law about it, then the law needs to create a REAL disincentive for misapplying or selectively applying the Civil Rights Act. Does that make sense?
Our problem isn’t actually the law, honestly. Our problem is that it’s ok to flagrantly violate the law. Laws are always useless when they have no enforcement. Does anyone think that sanctuary cities aren’t a clear and express violation of federal law?How do they get away with it? Furthermore, if a large segment of the public disagrees with some law, what’s to stop future sanctuary cities that deny the legitimacy of any future civil rights laws? Leftists have firmly set the precedent that federal law doesn’t have to apply to counties or whole states anyway.
This is what needs to be looked at and resolved. Until there are disincentives for violating the Constitution, then the laws are worthless unless enforced by a serious and constitutionalist administration. If you don’t get such an administration (which we have lacked for many years now and almost got again this November), then there’s not a single law that matters: laws won’t necessarily be enforced, and if they are then only specific clauses may be, or they will be interpreted in such a way that is exclusive (such as a prevailing and bizarre interpretation of the Civil Rights Act so as to appear that “white” is not a race and “Christianity” is not a religion or creed).
I think his point is that the law that you’re talking about enforcing says, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .” so that means that Congress will make no law that takes away our freedom of speech. Many of us THINK it says, “US citizens have the freedom of speech…” but it doesn’t say that. It says, “CONGRESS shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . .” So it appears we do need a new law.
As you so eloquently put it “Congress shall pass no law…” was supposed to keep the government from infringing on rights, however they have chosen simply to establish rules and policies to infringe on rights.
The government also managed to convince business to censor free speech.
Maybe a simple law stating any action by a individual, corporation, company, or government activity that results in the infringement of any of the rights recognized as god given rights in the bill of rights is considered as treason and makes the victim subject to receipt of civil remedies and the perpetrator(s) subject to criminal prosecution, fines and civil lawsuits !
Ok so who decides if it is true or not true? I say we need to stop the NGO’s from telling mainstream how to think and what to say. The way to stop that…Stop funding ALL non govt organizations. HARD ATOP!
They want to monitor social media…monitor all you want but you are not allowed to act on ANYTHING that isn’t life or DEATH. HARD STOP!!! All else the govt needs to stay out of it period.
Exactly!! free speech means we the people can have opinions and say what’s on our mind or tell others what we found to discuss it and see if is real or not.
So far that is not the case for online platforms like X.com where it says that
"Inauthentic Content
You may not share inauthentic content "
is up to the user to find out if that is accurate or not.
How to know if is true or not
step 1, who gave the information
step 2, verify where the information was obtained
step3 verify if the source of that information has undisputable proof
The Constitutional right to free speech limits the government from restricting it. This design gives us tremendous latitude to criticize the government and our representatives. But the Constitution doesn’t address speech against other persons. And, the Supremes have repeatedly ruled that some speech, like libel and slander, is unlawful and actionable. Thus, we don’t have the right or freedom to say whatever we want without consequences.
Suggest that the legislation also fines any foreign government that impedes the free speech activities of any American company on any platform anywhere in the world. In Australia today the just elected pro CCP communists running the country are putting in place legislation to prevent the population communicating on line. The person running this censorship program is an American citizen and perhaps the legislation could also target American citizens that assist foreign governments in undermining American companies promoting free speech. Only persons approved by the Australian government and verified by the Australian government will be able to communicate on social media.
Can you also include a prohibition on any American citizen conspiring with a foreign government to restrict the freedom of speech of citizens of that country and also working with that foreign government to restrict the reach of American companies in that country. This is currently happening in Australia where an American citizen is working with our CCP aligned government to restrict the free speech of Australians and our ability to communicate freely with Americans through American owned platforms. She is Julia Inman Grant. Grant was at Twitter and Microsoft.
That is why I proposed this extremely important policy proposal:
Policy to Establish the Separation of the Corporatocracy and the State 
