Crisis of Speech

The Democrat media pushes their partisan agenda of division, victim-hood, multiculturalism, anti-faith, humanism, socialism and more in a subtle manner, (with ever-decreasing subtlety), in order to transform America into their form of fascist socialism.  They portray their positions as main stream, the majority view, and distort the image of their opponents.  In this they utilize lies and hypocrisy.  As a direct consequence of their goal, rights guaranteed in our constitution must be either disregarded or discarded.   Their targets are free speech, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms.  Communists in America have been seeking to accomplish most all of these same goals.  With this backdrop let’s consider their attack on free speech.

Why is there such an urgent call for censorship of speech?  After two hundred years, what is so different today as to warrant so drastic a measure?  Just a few weeks ago a candidate for Senate stated her opinion that Americans should be free to join the Taliban (an avowed combatant and enemy of America).  Some considered her statement treasonous and supportive of our enemies, but no one suggested she should be censored or punished in any way.  The president is called a racist frequently because he seeks to defend our national borders against those who illegally cross them, and law suits are filed to thwart the national security interest as defined in the constitution.  The difference regarding free speech today is not a matter of existing law or its deficiency, but it’s destruction.  For example, planned parenthood has continually sought to prevent the free speech of those who oppose the killing of babies through abortion, most recently they fight to prevent the truth exposing their baby body parts business.  They have sought to prohibit anti-abortion signs and speaking with pregnant women near their facilities.  The Supreme Court has upheld the right of free speech on a public sidewalk, even one in front of an abortion facility.  Even the rights of white supremacist to march peacefully and speak are protected, because for their speech to be free, it must be all-inclusive.  In the late 1960’s and 70’s, Americans protested the Vietnam war, and it was protected speech.

Today, the adversaries of free speech own most of the electronic digital sidewalk upon which much of America’s speaking is done.  Google, Facebook, Apple, and other like-minded Democrat humanists are the power brokers demanding censorship of speech upon these platforms.  While free enterprise and private property rights are important and should be protected, are these platforms truly private?  Until the civil rights era blacks could not eat at certain privately owned restaurants.  Civil rights means that rights of all citizens can not be distinguished based on religion, race, color, national origin, gender, age, and disability because these distinctions are inherent or otherwise protected, rather than behavioral or preferential.  Therefore, there are limits to personal property rights.  Moreover, the commerce conducted by these giant Internet platforms could not and do not operate in a totally private sphere as bandwidth and public utility infrastructure upon which these computer networks rely is a public utility and integral with the public forum. Significant access roadways are always subject to the public authority as a public necessity.  Yes, private roads can and do exists, but just as restaurants open to the public must be open to all the public, so electronic digital pathways should be open to all the public and not subject to censorship by owners who are biased, self-righteous, and promoting their political interest, rather than the guarantee of freedom of speech.

We are in a time like the Gilded age, where mighty Barrons of power and great wealth exerted their influence, capital, and energies to self-promotion. Unfortunately, todays power Barrons have no love for America or thanks to it; their Humanistic religion makes its followers believe they are superior to theist faiths (with the exception of radical Islam which has the same goal of America’s destruction), so they seek to suppress any opposition by silencing it.  If they control speech by labeling it “hate speech” or otherwise censor opinion by suggesting you can believe whatever you wish but we will limit what is expressed in an electronic digital format, they will have over-ruled the rights guaranteed by the constitution. Private businesses should never be granted such power as they are exploiting a public internet that belongs to all Americans. Moreover, the unelected owners and even federal bureaucrats should not be the ones to decide such a critical issue.  In the case of homosexuals who wanted a birthday cake message that violated the business owners religious views, it was not property rights that were at issue, but religious practice.  Threats of violence are already illegal, these Internet Barrons are seeking to censor political speech, as though a conservative political position were equivalent to screaming fire in a crowded theatre when there is none.  It may be time to break up the Internet oligarchy and restore competition to this industry.  Only a monopolized industry could conceive of wielding so much power contrary to constitutional rights.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s