63 Conservative Leaders Unite, Issue Statement On Social Media Censorship
Western Journal publisher Floyd Brown and Liftable Media CEO Patrick Brown are two of 63 conservative leaders who issued a joint statement Wednesday urging fairer and more transparent policies in order to prevent the suppression of conservative voices on various social media platforms.
“Social media censorship and online restriction of conservatives and their organizations have reached a crisis level,” the statement begins. “Conservative leaders now have banded together to call for equal treatment on tech and social media.”
The statement illustrates the problems conservatives have encountered with Facebook, Twitter, Google, and its video platform YouTube.
“Social media firms have banned gun videos and rejected pro-life advertisements,” the statement reads. “They have skewed search results and adjusted trending topics in ways that have harmed the right. Firms have restricted and deleted videos, even academic content. Conservative tech employees have found their speech limited and their careers harmed. And top tech companies have given preferential treatment to anointed legacy media outlets that also lean left. These same tech titans then work with groups openly hostile to conservatives to restrict speech.”
The statement lays out four areas it believes social media companies must address to begin to rectify their credibility problem.
First, it asks the companies to provide transparency to illustrate if left-leaning posts receive the same scrutiny as those posts by conservatives.
“Social media companies operate in a black-box environment, only releasing anecdotes about reports on content and users when they think it necessary,” the statement reads. “This needs to change. The companies need to design open systems so that they can be held accountable, while giving weight to privacy concerns.”
Second, the statement asks for clarity on what each company defines as hate speech.
Do you believe social media companies have an anti-conservative bias?
“No two firms define it the same way,” the statement reads. “Their definitions are vague and open to interpretation, and their interpretation often looks like an opportunity to silence thought. Today, hate speech means anything liberals don’t like. Silencing those you disagree with is dangerous. If companies can’t tell users clearly what it is, then they shouldn’t try to regulate it.”
Third, it wants social media firms to add conservatives to help balance their content advisory teams.
“Top social media firms, such as Google and YouTube, have chosen to work with dishonest groups that are actively opposed to the conservative movement, including the Southern Poverty Law Center,” the statement reads. “Those companies need to make equal room for conservative groups as advisers to offset this bias. That same attitude should be applied to employment diversity efforts. Tech companies need to embrace viewpoint diversity.”
Finally, it wants social media companies to respect their users’ right to free speech.
“Tech giants should afford their users nothing less than the free speech and free exercise of religion embodied in the First Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court,” the statement reads. “That standard, the result of centuries of American jurisprudence, would enable the rightful blocking of content that threatens violence or spews obscenity, without trampling on free speech liberties that have long made the United States a beacon for freedom.”
RELATED: Facebook Submits to Political Bias Audit Amid Allegations of Censoring Conservative Voices
The statement says addressing these issues is critical if social media firms “wish to have any credibility with the conservative movement and its tens of millions of supporters.”
“If the social media firms engage the conservative movement with the spirit of cooperation, we will do our best to assist them,” the statement concludes.
Among those who signed the statement are Media Research Center founder and President Brent Bozell, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, Texas Congressman Lamar Smith, former Attorney General Edwin Meese, Project Veritas CEO James O’Keefe, and retired Army Lt. Col. Allen B. West, who is also director of the MRC Censorship Project for the Media Research Center. https://www.westernjournal.com/63-conservative-leaders-unite-issue-statement-on-social-media-censorship/
Tags
Who is online
81 visitors
“First, it asks the companies to provide transparency to illustrate if left-leaning posts receive the same scrutiny as those posts by conservatives.
“Social media companies operate in a black-box environment, only releasing anecdotes about reports on content and users when they think it necessary,” the statement reads. “This needs to change. The companies need to design open systems so that they can be held accountable, while giving weight to privacy concerns.”
Second, the statement asks for clarity on what each company defines as hate speech.
Do you believe social media companies have an anti-conservative bias?
“No two firms define it the same way,” the statement reads. “Their definitions are vague and open to interpretation, and their interpretation often looks like an opportunity to silence thought. Today, hate speech means anything liberals don’t like. Silencing those you disagree with is dangerous. If companies can’t tell users clearly what it is, then they shouldn’t try to regulate it.”
Third, it wants social media firms to add conservatives to help balance their content advisory teams.
“Top social media firms, such as Google and YouTube, have chosen to work with dishonest groups that are actively opposed to the conservative movement, including the Southern Poverty Law Center,” the statement reads. “Those companies need to make equal room for conservative groups as advisers to offset this bias. That same attitude should be applied to employment diversity efforts. Tech companies need to embrace viewpoint diversity.”
Finally, it wants social media companies to respect their users’ right to free speech.
“Tech giants should afford their users nothing less than the free speech and free exercise of religion embodied in the First Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court,” the statement reads. “That standard, the result of centuries of American jurisprudence, would enable the rightful blocking of content that threatens violence or spews obscenity, without trampling on free speech liberties that have long made the United States a beacon for freedom.”
You really REALLY need to stop with the, "i'm the victim" articles. It's just plain sad.
It’s not about me personally but about the generic and general internet bias and discrimination against observant Christians and political conservatives. That and the personal bigotry and bias of the founding owners of Facebook, Twitter, and Alphabet.
They are privately owned business's too, they can censor you if they want to, (they don't, but I am making a point here). If you don't like using those platforms, create your own and go gung ho. I suspect that you want to have privileged speech and you are unhappy with EQUAL speech. Same thing when same sex marriage was passed. Many on the religious right were pissed. Not because it was passed, but because they felt oppressed because now, "the gays", had something they had and were...equal.
Apart from Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-A I doubt that there are many if any owners of big businesses in the US today who share your odious views. You'd have to go to a place like Russia or Saudi Arabia to find big businesses which support or even tolerate things like transphobia or homophobia.
By the way it's been reported that one of the "must have" factors for the location of Amazon's new headquarters is that the city have comprehensive non-discrimination laws which protect sexual orientation and gender identity. That leaves out most if not all of the red states entirely.
What about the suppression of liberal voices on various social media platforms?
My comments always get deleted whenever I post on Breitbart. Waaaah!
No they don’t. It’s actual mainstream conservative site articles that get censored here🤬, not ones from populist sites like that.
Yes they do. That's why I don't bother posting on Breitbart anymore.
That never happens.
Fox news absolutely censors comments in their "blog" chat thing...whatever you want to call it.
It happens all over your seeds. If conservative views were anywhere close to mainstream popular US culture they wouldn't need, or be asking for, special accommodations on social media platforms. Don't like it? They can get their own alt-whatever. Skirting the CoC "BF"
Breitfart. LOL!
They are mainstream. It’s those social media sites that are excluding some 40% of the population and their beliefs and opinions.
When those posted beliefs and opinions are moronic, expect an equal amount of push back.
There is nothing outside of the mainstream in those posted beliefs.
The thumper gravy train is leaving the station empty as soon as trump's time is up.
You mean when we have the Pence Presidency?
I see that lasting until 2020 and, then there will be a new president.
Trump will be President until 2025 and then Pence will be elected in 2024.
Do you have freedom of speech? Yes. Do you have freedom of speech on private property, or privately owned media? No.
Example? Lets say NT was conservative or liberal owned. Could they suppress the voices of conservatives or liberals? Yes, and there isn't a damn thing anyone could do about it.
Any internet company could, but a publicly traded company would care about its advertisers and shareholders and avoid becoming an echo chamber one way or the other. If Facebook or you tube or twitter lost all their conservative subscribers and a rival started up to take their place, what would happen? Well if the big ones drive off their conservatives and new start ups for us happens then the political segregation of the country accelerates.
That's probably why most publicly traded companies oppose things like racism, misogyny and homophobia. They simply have no interest in endorsing dumb bigots.
Ummmm.....they do exactly that since they oppose censorship by the government and oppose infringement of religion by the government.
It's really not clear what the seeder or the article's author are whining about. Did they both skip high school civics?
We are advocating for equal treatment for all religious and political views on publicly traded social media sites.
Publicly traded, privately owned. Put it another way. Could I claim you were not honoring my right to free speech if I wanted to come to your house and preach against your religion and political standpoint? No. Why not? It's YOUR house. Could I stand in the street and do it? Yes, because that's a public place and legally, there would be nothing you could do about it.
They should have to serve conservatives and Christians under the public accommodation clause unless they have a religious belief exemption to do so.
Religious freedom cannot violate someone else's civil rights. You cannot FORCE a religion on anyone. Remember, freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.
In fact that's sort of correct but your last clause is completely incorrect since the religious beliefs of the owner or operator of a public accommodation can't be used as an excuse to unlawfully deny access to that public accommodation.
Your first clause is incorrect too since "political views" are not a federally protected class and aren't protected in any state except CA.
So the only part you actually got correct is that a public accommodation can't deny service based on a customer's religious affiliation. Clearly that would apply to an ISP or telco or bakery, but there are already a number of rulings that websites like eBay and Facebook are not places of public accommodation......not even in the context of the ADA where the government arguably has a far more compelling interest in protecting access for people with a disability (versus those afflicted with a mere superstition).
But if you want some free legal advice I'd suggest going that route by arguing that superstition is a form of mental illness and thus should be protected under the ADA. That would be a good first step and would give you ADA protection even if you still can't force a website to post your odious comments.
Charlottesville. "Blood and Soil. Jews will not replace us."
Nobody is censoring conservatism. It is being heard loud and clear.
MAGA
Off topic [ph]
Misogynist Authoritarian Grabbing Ass
off topic [ph]
Off topic [ph]
Off topic [ph]
LOL... I saw it on twitter not long after I used it here...so I am sure someone else got to it before I did.. But thanks
That’s not conservatism. That’s liberal socialist fascism. The major social media are engaging in liberal fascist censorship.
I don't think you know what fascism is. Here, let me help you...
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. [12] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. [12] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. [13] [14] [15] [16] Fascists advocate a mixed economy , with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. [17]
1) Fascists HATE liberals. Liberalism and fascism are literally opposite ends of the political spectrum. They aren't even close.
2) Who screamed out, "I LOVE WAR!!!!", during the last election? Who wants to increase military spending by 5.6%? Who has been trying to talk NK into WWIII? Trump.
3) It was a neo-nazi that drove his car into a crowd of protesters in Charlottsville. Neo-nazi's are fascists. 1+1=2.
Understand? So you can stop with the "liberal fascists" nonsense.
You may be confusing hate speech, (which is not protected), with free speech. Either way, if the company is privately owned, they can censor whoever they want. Fox news does it all the time. Go to their, "chat" rooms and look for yourself. I have had many of my comments deleted there. One was simply pointing out that trump doesn't tell the truth very often...deleted. So if you want to complain about censorship, start with your beloved fox news.
Ah yes it is. If the only thing that was protected was speech everyone liked and did not consider hateful was protected we wouldn't need the fFirst Amendmentportion that protects free speech.
if you are talking about Canada, then you would be more correct.
True. It's only in private contexts and certain quasi-governmental contexts (state-run universities, government employers, the military) where hate speech isn't protected. Otherwise conservatives are free to engage in hate speech.
I stand corrected.
This liberal equating conservative and Christian speech with hate speech is what is ruining political dialogue in this country and poisons the well of civil communication between people who simply disagree on key issues in this country. It is the progressive way of attempting to censor speech that they disagree with.
Granted NT is not a social media giant, however the Conservative right wing voice is not just strong on this site, but to a large extent rules the site. The truth it is that Conservative Christian thought that claims is the truth on every social and media outlet site. Conservatives run America, especially Christian Conservatives, yet they are the ones who claim falsely to be the most oppressed. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic.
The vast, vast majority of Americans are Christians. The vast, vast majority of people in political power are Christians. Congress opens each day with a prayer from a Christian. The idea of a person being elected to the office of the President of the United States who does not profess a strong Christian faith is unthinkable and the same is true for the majority of federal elective offices. I mean there is not a thinking person in America who thinks that Donald Trump is actually a Christian or has any idea of what it means to be one, but he professes the faith and says the right words, so he gets the mulligan enough to be accepted. When running for the House or the Senate, except in a very few Districts, being a professed and strong church going Christian is a requirement. The government is controlled by Christians.
The vast, vast majority of people who serve in the United States military are Christians, some far too fanatically such as has been shown at scandals at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Of course the U.S. Military is very accepting of other religions, but if you don't have a religion, are an atheist you are still required to have a faith stamped on your dog tags. When I joined the Air Force and they asked what religion I wanted on my dog tags I said none, that I didn't have a religion. They asked what religion I had been raised in and I told the Roman Catholic, so that's what was stamped on them. They didn't give me an option. None was not an option.
The vast, vast majority of people who run businesses in America are Christian and some of them run their companies in very Christian ways (Chick-fil-a, Hobby Lobby, and number of Christian run hospitals).
No matter how you cut it the vast, vast, vast overwhelming force in this nation, barely held back by the concept of the separation of church and state, are the Christians and they are constantly assaulting the idea of that separation and want to change this from a secular nation as our forefathers intended it to be because they knew it could not survive in any other way, into a Christian nation and whenever they are stopped from doing so they bitch and piss and moan and complain that they are being persecuted when the plain and simple truth is that all that is happening is that they are being prevented from taking over the government and the free lives of people who do not believe as they do.
The are being prevented from doing otherwise because of what their faith tells them that they must do and that is to convert everyone to the faith and love of Jesus Christ. They can not help this because it is their faith, their mission. Well my faith is the Constitution of the United States of America. It is my Bible and to me it is more sacred and more powerful when it comes to the rights of human beings in this nation. It, not the Bible, is the Supreme Word in America!
Conservatives have no influence whatsoever on this site. Who do you think you are trying to persuade here? Anytime anything is said that hurts the feelings of any atheist or progressive it’s censored. People here generally bash Christians and sweepingly equate conservative speech with hate speech and hit Trump with every sweeping generalization under the sun and that’s all fine. But to question anything at all about the secular political left and all the 🧀 with the 🍷 commences.
Two liberal hit pieces in one day?
The bible thumping seeds have a shorter shelf life on NT now. Bwah ha ha
😢 👶
What exactly does that mean?
I wonder how many of those religious leaders were praying that somebody catches a few slugs.