Why We Need Anti-Censorship Legislation For Social Media, Stat
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Social media companies got rich with legal protections as platforms, only to turn around and behave like publishers when conservatives started using their publishing services.
Louis Farrakhan remains on Twitter, while Jesse Kelly was supposedly permanently banned—then reinstated suddenly, without explanation, after Congress began to sniff around.
That pretty much tells you all you need to know about the left’s institutional biases, and why we desperately need anti-censorship free speech legislation for social media. Kelly, a Federalist senior contributor and combat veteran, and whose posts were frequently both funny and informative, was banned without warning or explanation. At the time, he was told the ban was permanent.
Yet Farrakhan, with his decades-long record of racist and anti-Semitic incitement on and off social media, is still untouched.
Kelly predicted this day would come in a Federalist article he wrote after Alex Jones was banned from Twitter. Presciently, Kelly noted that “The leftists will not stop (and did not stop) at nutty Alex Jones, because they do not think you are much different from him. You rightly think your belief in immigration enforcement is much different than his disgusting conspiracy theory about Sandy Hook. . . . [but]they just knew Jones was the weak member of the herd. They could pick him off as a test run. Next they’re coming for you.”
It’s not just individuals on social media. Entire social media platforms , including those specifically created to protect the free speech denied on services like Twitter, are now being taken off the Internet.
I first learned to make Web pages from “A Beginner’s Guide to HTML 1.0” from the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA). I first surfed the Web in 1993 with NCSA MOSAIC, the first graphical Web browser. At the time there were about 200 Web sites in the entire world. Later, I was an editor at the first magazine devoted to the Internet.
I remember thrilling in those early days to the word of legendary technologist and Internet pioneer John Gilmore, one of the founders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who famously said that “The Net interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it.”
The thing that was thrilling about the Internet, besides the instant access to information, was that nobody could control it—or so it seemed. Now, however, Gilmore’s dream has vanished, a victim of a left-wing tech monopoly that has discarded its freedom-loving Internet roots in favor of social justice warrioring.
Increasingly, conservatives, who long gave the issue too little attention, are taking note. A new documentary, “ The Creepy Line ,” featuring high production values and luminaries such as Jordan Peterson and Peter Schweitzer, discusses the various ways Google and Facebook can manipulate search results and other things subtly in ways that dramatically disadvantage conservatives and can even tip elections. Prominent scholars are doing groundbreaking research on the power of these social media companies, which is far greater than even big tech skeptics realized.
But it’s not just bannings that show the liberal double standard on Internet censorship. Let me travel back in time with you to the halcyon days of American politics of bipartisan comity and collegiality and respect. That is to say, the early days of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, where a mere trifle such as an accusation of neo-Nazism against a conservative Mexican-American of partially Jewish origin could still be termed by respected observers “The craziest liberal freakout of all time.”
The incident in question involved Zina Bash, a former Kavanaugh clerk, who, according to various breathless online voices on the left, had flashed a white power hand signal on TV during Kavanaugh’s hearings. Even after Bash’s background was revealed, the liberal lunacy continued, including posts from Twitter accounts with tens or hundreds of thousands for followers. On Facebook, even after being thoroughly debunked, the conspiracy theory was still being featured by The People for Bernie Sanders (1.4 million Facebook followers) and Occupy Democrats (7.5 million followers), among many other left-wing sites.
Despite their blatant conspiracy-mongering and slander, these accounts remain up—just as Farrakhan’s account is still up although at the time the Kavanaugh hearings began, his pinned tweet was “Thoroughly and completely unmasking the Satanic Jew and the Synagogue of Satan.” Another Twitter post of his, still live, compares Jews to termites.
The utter and continuing failure of social media to self-police how they treat the right was underscored that same week when Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg testified before Congress about ongoing social media censorship of conservatives. On the eve of the testimony, Facebook was busy placing misleading distractions in a Washington Post owned by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. In an op-ed there, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg attempted to frame social media’s problems as primarily the result of foreign interference.
To the extent that fake accounts and foreign bots are on the social media services, of course they should be taken down. But the far bigger question, and one Zuckerberg studiously avoided, is what to do with controversial but genuine content.
In Facebook and Twitter’s case, their approach has been all too-often to censor conservative or right-wing content, or to use fact-checkers composed of left-wing groups and compliant GOP establishment lapdogs to be arbiters of truth, with those not passing establishment muster losing 80 percent of their traffic, according to Zuckerberg’s own estimates.
In his testimony, Dorsey referred repeatedly to Twitter as the “digital public square,” an odd formulation given that the public square is generally seen to be a place where, legally, free speech should reign, even if that public square is privately owned (see, for example, the Supreme Court case Marsh v. Alabama )
Contra Zuckerberg, Sandberg, and Dorsey, the problem from social media is not that people are seeing things they don’t want to see, it’s that they are not seeing things they do want to see—particularly if those things are conservative and “controversial.” Now House Republicans are probing whether Dorsey lied in his congressional testimony about that platform’s treatment of conservatives, a show of spine that has been long overdue.
What is needed is an end to the bans, which will only punish the right, and a return to free speech on social media. This could be accomplished quite effectively with a modest number of user-controlled, rather than big-tech controlled, content filters.
But that will not happen unless the government, through Congress and the courts, demand the big tech monopolies and oligopolies stop their reign of politically biased censorship, one which sees conservatives attacked with impunity but liberals getting off scot-free or even lauded for harassment. Social media companies got rich with legal protections that proclaimed them only to be dumb platforms, only to turn around and behave like publishers when conservatives started using their platform to share information that they didn’t approve of.
A number of articles on conservative Web sites, almost invariably written by people with little actual experience in Silicon Valley, argue that we cannot have “government regulating the Internet.” But legislation to demand First Amendment protections for speech on social media, where it is threatened by monopolies and oligopolies, is a far different beast than legislation that attempts to stifle First Amendment protections.
For “conservatives” who object to a government role in upholding our freedoms, consider William F. Buckley’s observation that one should not morally equate a man who pushes little old ladies out of the path of a hurtling bus from those pushing them into the path of a hurtling bus on the grounds that both men are pushing around little old ladies. Today, Buckley’s proverbial bus is owned by Facebook, Google, and Twitter. If more conservatives don’t wise up and start defending Americans’ free speech rights, rights currently only extended to our political opponents, we’re going to get run over.
Tags
Who is online
79 visitors
“Increasingly, conservatives, who long gave the issue too little attention, are taking note. A new documentary, “The Creepy Line,” featuring high production values and luminaries such as Jordan Peterson and Peter Schweitzer, discusses the various ways Google and Facebook can manipulate search results and other things subtly in ways that dramatically disadvantage conservatives and can even tip elections. Prominent scholars are doing groundbreaking research on the power of these social media companies, which is far greater than even big tech skeptics realized.
But it’s not just bannings that show the liberal double standard on Internet censorship. Let me travel back in time with you to the halcyon days of American politics of bipartisan comity and collegiality and respect. That is to say, the early days of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, where a mere trifle such as an accusation of neo-Nazism against a conservative Mexican-American of partially Jewish origin could still be termed by respected observers “The craziest liberal freakout of all time.”
The incident in question involved Zina Bash, a former Kavanaugh clerk, who, according to various breathless online voices on the left, had flashed a white power hand signal on TV during Kavanaugh’s hearings. Even after Bash’s background was revealed, the liberal lunacy continued, including posts from Twitter accounts with tens or hundreds of thousands for followers. On Facebook, even after being thoroughly debunked, the conspiracy theory was still being featured by The People for Bernie Sanders (1.4 million Facebook followers) and Occupy Democrats (7.5 million followers), among many other left-wing sites.
Despite their blatant conspiracy-mongering and slander, these accounts remain up—just as Farrakhan’s account is still up although at the time the Kavanaugh hearings began, his pinned tweet was “Thoroughly and completely unmasking the Satanic Jew and the Synagogue of Satan.” Another Twitter post of his, still live, compares Jews to termites.
The utter and continuing failure of social media to self-police how they treat the right was underscored that same week when Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg testified before Congress about ongoing social media censorship of conservatives. On the eve of the testimony, Facebook was busy placing misleading distractions in a Washington Post owned by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. In an op-ed there, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg attempted to frame social media’s problems as primarily the result of foreign interference.
To the extent that fake accounts and foreign bots are on the social media services, of course they should be taken down. But the far bigger question, and one Zuckerberg studiously avoided, is what to do with controversial but genuine content.
In Facebook and Twitter’s case, their approach has been all too-often to censor conservative or right-wing content, or to use fact-checkers composed of left-wing groups”
Read the fine print before you click ACCEPT.
Either that or create your own conservative alternative to Twitter, Google, and Facebook. If you don't like their rules then go somewhere else that is more to your approval. You aren't paying to use those platforms and you certainly aren't forced to use them, so you hate little reason to complain or demand that the government step in and regulate them.
Any social media which does not exercise proper editorial controls regarding its content will necessarily have to have regulations imposed upon it especially regarding divisive anti-American foreign propaganda. The disemination of misinformation is bad for society so no legitimate platforms should allow their services be abused and their reputations ruined by the purveyors of lies, misinformation and outright propaganda.
Actually the deal was protection vs defamation slander and libel compared to other media in exchange for not engaging in editorial content control and censorship. If they engage in what they are doing and seek more of they need to be treated like all other media when it comes to exposure to legal risks. I am all for the government compelling this industry to choose between the legal protection and their censorship of conservatives. Either censor or have the existing legal protection deal. Not both.
You are confused. Private social media platform absolutely can and should edit what content they will publish. Left, right or center all sites are allowed to choose what they will and what they will not publish. That is freedom...
True and the devil is definitely in the details.
One persons claimed misinformation, is another persons free speech censorship. Propaganda works that way ....
One slippery assed slope there .....
The same applies to so called media fact checkers like politifact and snopes.
"Conservative or right wing content,"---- From the last paragraph of this-------------'piece.'
Absolutely. Russian, autocratic and far right propaganda must be fed into the American dialog to make sure the Americans have the ability and the absolute right to make political decisions that will destroy their democracy, their freedoms and hopes for a better future.
Damn those people that wish to put a cap on lies, fear and hate. Damn them.
s/
It is a blood libel to refer to our conservative sources as if they are foreign sources.
No it isn't. Conservatism is dead. Conservatism is 'blood libel." ( Whatever in the hell that is )
Really? A blood libel? What conservative died for that?
Do you know how many Jews died from blood libel? Apparently not or you would not be so glib about the term.
Blood libel is a lie that was told for hundreds of years that Jews need Christian children's blood to make Matzoh for Passover. It has been the cause of much death to Jews over the centuries.
....Just as Palin and her fellow conservatives are accused of inciting the schizophrenic shooter to pull the trigger, so Netanyahu and his fellow rightists were accused of inciting the sociopathic Yigal Amir to plot and carry out his crime.
And just as it doesn’t matter to the American media elites that American conservatives engaged in no such incitement, and that Loughlin himself seemed motivated to act by a mad obsession with grammar, so it didn’t matter to their Israeli counterparts that Amir’s closest associate and the man responsible for the most incendiary anti-Rabin propaganda was Avishai Raviv – a government agent.
Palin’s characterization of the Left’s appalling assault on her and her fellow conservatives as a "blood libel," was entirely accurate. Moreover, as her previous use of the term "death panels," in the healthcare debate brought clarity to an issue the Left sought to obscure, so her use of the term "blood libel," exposed the nature of the Left’s behavior and highlighted its intentions.
By warning about "death panels," Palin exposed the fly in the ointment of government healthcare. Government control will induce scarcity of healthcare and government rationing will necessarily follow. That rationing in turn will be undertaken by panels of government officials empowered to decide who gets what care. Her remark focused the debate on the flaws in the program in a way no other had.
In the case of her use of the term "blood libel," Palin exposed the Left’s attempt to criminalize conservatives and make it impossible for conservatives to either defend themselves or pursue their alternative policy agenda.
A blood libel involves two things. First, it involves an imaginary crime. Second, it involves the accusation that an entire group of people is guilty of committing that crime that never occurred.
Classically, of course, blood libels have been used against Jews. Anti-Semites accused Jews of killing Christians for ritual use of their blood. Jews had murdered no one and Judaism has no ritual involving the use of human blood. Yet repeatedly entire communities were criminalized and persecuted based on these blood libels.
By criminalizing the entire community based on false allegations regarding a never-committed crime, anti-Semites made it impossible for Jews to go on about our lives. If we sought to deny the charges, we gave them credibility. If we ignored the charges, our silence was interpreted as an admission of guilt. And no matter what we did, the blood libel firmly attached the stench of murder to a completely innocent Jewish community.
Just as their Israeli counterparts did in the wake of Rabin’s assassination, so the American Left seeks to attach a sense of criminality and violence to the American Right in order to make it socially and otherwise unpalatable to support or otherwise identify with it.
By calling the Left out for its behavior, Palin exposed its agenda. But the logic of the blood libel remained. Trusting the public’s ignorance, and the liberal Jewish community’s solidarity, the leftist media in the US immediately condemned Palin for daring to use the term, hinted she was an anti-Semite for doing so, and argued that by defending herself, she was again inciting violence.... https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2011/01/27/the-aim-of-blood-libels-2/
It's an oldie from Sarah Palin.
It was the word of the weak, for the weak.
False grace is less than no grace at all so Sarah Palin is "Grace Free"...
But nothing happened to Palin or anyone else. They live breath and even are a part of the political scene, so that term is being used hyperbolically. You seem to miss my point totally.
But, but, but... The War on Christmas? /s...
I just got my Grinch suit back from the cleaners so where is the first battle on Christmas to be fought. I need a few hours to book a hotel room and rent a car.
Why are you still spreading the 2009 lie of the year, or is this another of your religious beliefs?
[deleted]
I’ll get to the very real secular progressive war on Christmas another day....
Well the author of the quote regarding Palin himself is Jewish.
A lie doesn't become fact just because you believe it. If you doesn't understand that concept you are at war with logic and reality. I can only suggest that you learn the difference between objective and subjective.
I can't wait to hear about this supposed war.
I celebrate the invention of gravity on Christmas day.
I'll be happy to drop an apple on your head in honor of your holiday.
Gravitus is it?
It is quite real and I will detail it on a slow news day. Merry Christmas.
I'm guessing that will be sometime after the 31st of February.
I hope you have a blessed Yule.
See my most recent seed. It’s all about that war.
Where is the first battle planned for?
Why We Need Anti-Censorship Legislation For Social Media, Stat
Seriously ?
WTF is it with some of the the republicans and the republican party these days quite the contradiction in philosophy if ya ask me, they seem to clammer for smaller government until they want something then we need another government department or more laws.
It might be funny even if it wasnt so damn costly.
I'll add this:
IMO: The sooner the American people realize that the government can not fix all their problems the sooner we really will have a greater America.
Well social media got immunity from defamation and slander/libel laws unlike print and electronic media sources in exchange for being an open exchange or gateway to all opinions welcome or speak your mind and not exercise editorial content control. Congress is looking at reversing that deal and treating them like any other media libel wise etc. due to the fact checking and censorship of conservatives and their sites and voices. Maybe even an executive order. I’m all in for this. It’s to hold the internet sites to the deal they made or punish them all.
Sorry I still have the same response to the media inequality as I've held for years. If The conservatives are unhappy with the imbalance its still legal to start conservative media outlets to put out their side of the truth.
IMO: A person is either or free speech or restricted speech. I'm still in the free speech category. When nv shut down I thought about doing a chatsite, my intent was NO censorship whatsoever. when I was on nv I stated a censor free nation.
Which nv then censored.... lol
The reason the internet is not under the same set of laws is we are not professionals anyone and everyone can be on the net doing whatever they chose. including all the religions... this IS freedom.
As a Free country I'd say we deserve this one last freedom as long as we can hold onto it before our government make it theirs.
The big problem is preventing the government from giving the gatekeepers monopolies. To keep the Internet free we have to keep the government from regulating it.
Do you think that the government should protect the free and open net or should ISP be permitted to regulate the net in violation of net neutrality?
My concern is the government regulating the net and awarding ISP’s monopolies or passing laws that force the ISP’s to restrict some content. Many times the government has tried to censor free speech and I suspect their are many that would like to see them do it on the internet. There are a lot of people that will label something they find offensive as hate speech and then try to convince others it should be banned or regulated.
Getting rid of the net neutrality did away with the government regulating them as a protected regulated utility style monopoly. Eliminating the earlier deal with the industry mentioned in the seed is not regulation. It just drops the shield they no longer have a legitimate claim or right to regarding exposure to lawsuits.
The SCOTUS has never spoken on internet free speech and that is a huge unknown. The government must step in and prevent ISPs from taking control of the net and regulating it as a private service that they control acess to.
You always get this wrong and I wonder what wacko site told you this?
Why do you think that a private for-profit corporation is preferable to control the internet than the government protecting it as a free and open space for all? Those ISPs could ban their subscribers from accessing site that you like and you would have no recourse.
The Sherman Antitrust makes monopoly power illegal. Under the Sherman Act monopoly power is it is only necessary to prove that the business had the power to fix prices or exclude competitors.
As long as anyone can jump on the internet from different providers It would seem there is competition . If they conspire of merge to fix the price or start excluding people yeah that's illegal.
I guess that's why we have laws and regulations. Some to help protect us from crap like monopolies.
The anti trust act is worth looking at but is not the subject of the article here. The issue is a deal the government made with internet companies to provide them with immunity from the types of liabilities faced by other media in exchange for being an open gateway of ideas and not engaging in content control as publishers do. It’s time to hold them to that agreement or withdraw their immunity deal regarding defamation , libel, and slander.
By that time WND would find a way to blame the Dems for it and you'd see it here from the same poster.
Remember all the laughing and seeds about Obama and "green jobs" and lord knows "Solyndra" for months on end?
Now I literally saw it twisted that the energy boom and new technology autos were in spite of Obama not wanting to expand energy....and then went further to list "Wind" "Solar" "Hydoelectric" as the way to go.
All the while refusing to credit Obama for initiating this new direction.
When it all boiled down it was they were pissed because Obama, like a shitload of other global leaders slammed the brakes on frakking.
You're opening your own Pandora's box and you don't even know it.
Brietbart, Glenn Beck, Rush and so many more including you would find a much tighter legal noose around their necks.
You'd see censoring like you never saw before as IP's would drop those sites for liability reasons.
Even if you got that passed...it solve's nothing for you. The IP's can itemize the rates charged to hosts and hosts can do as well.
This all seems a bunch of bitching because private run hosts have kick the "Unite the White" crowd to the curb.
So NOW you want government to interfere because you can't get off the ground. Or is it because your favorites are being rejected so much that a business decision you would defend if it were happening to liberal sites is working against you for whatever reason. Did you miss that part that these are businesses and not the government?
Obama is now trying to take credit for the boom in US oil and gas production.
As he should since every publication will tell you the same thing. He walked in from day one talking expansion of natural gas and although through ACAFE regulation, spurred the electrification process in cars.
In his third year he adopted an all under one roof of expansion in gas, oil, solar and electric technology, wind and hydro-electric fuel sources.
Sorry, that's history you may not like, but it's a fact. Oil and Natural Gas did boom under his leadership.
It's so easy to scream Solyndra, but that only lasts so long and then it becomes a desperate cry to distract from what actually did happen....and aObama had it right.
But that would ruin "The worst president ever" mantra.
Online Defamation
Defamation is legally defined as a false statement that serves to damage the reputation of a business or individual. Slander and libel are under the umbrella of defamation.
In order to have a case for defamation, you have to prove that the statement is not true and that it specifically concerns yourself or your business. It also has to be published by a third party–like a website or blog.
You’ll have to show evidence that your company experienced significant damage because of the statement. This is one of the hardest things to prove in court.
Unfortunately, you can’t take legal action against someone who is actually telling the truth. If someone digs up your dark past and posts it online, you can’t sue them. The truth hurts.
Slander vs. Libel
Slander and libel are subcategories of defamation. They both concern statements that harm you or your business’ reputation.
Slander
Slander is the act of verbally speaking an untrue statement to another party. It must tarnish another person’s reputation. Online slander can usually be found in a video, audio file, or podcast.
Libel
On the other hand, libel is the act of writing a damaging and untrue statement to another party. Websites, blogs, comment sections, forums, and review sections are all places where libel can occur online.
Take Action Against Online Defamation
You’re able to file a lawsuit for defamation of character, but your success in trial depends on how much havoc the false statement has wreaked.
The First Amendment of the Constitution states that Congress is not allowed to make a law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This makes it more difficult to make a case for defamation.
The Communications Decency Act is another barrier that could bar you from winning a defamation case. This act prohibits you from suing an internet service provider (ISP) for defamation. ISPs are meant to act like distributors, not perpetrators.
Who cannot sue” … Trump … for one .. now
Public Officials and Figures Have More to Prove
The public has a right to criticize the people who govern them, so the least protection from defamation is given to public officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice." (For a definition of actual malice, see the "History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.")
People who aren't elected but who are still public figures because they are influential or famous -- like movie stars -- also have to prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice, in most cases.
a deal the government made with internet companies to provide them with immunity from the types of liabilities faced by other media
First the internet is not a media company, Second if you are advocating for being able to sue companies for something someone else says while in their establishment . Look out.
I can see Mcdonalds being sued for some jerk calling someone a name in line.
Big bucks !!
Big Bucks
Come on Big Buck !!!
They slammed the brakes on fracking? On federal lands, yes but on state and private lands he didn’t because the courts overturned his attempts to do that through regulations.
Um yeah, about that censorship of conservatives:
Facebook employed Definers Public Affairs to paint liberal critics as pawns of George Soros, and in some cases, even as anti-Semitic.
The new algorithm targeted online publications on both sides of the political spectrum that were critical of U.S. imperialism, foreign wars, and other long-standing government policies.
Neither Twitter nor Facebook care about anything except the official line, whatever that may be.
If your favorite news feed on facebook has been removed, I have no problem with that. Plenty of mine have. But then again, I always visit those sites on a regular basis and try to help when I can. Inconvenience is no excuse for passing a poorly formed law.
Censorship is a liberal thing
WOW I wasn't aware Fox news chatroom was liberal as they were poofing my postings as soon as I posted them. Gee I was blaming the wrong party. Who wooda guessed, thanks for clearing that up for me.
Sarc
I speak from experience having been banned from Daily Kos. Google and Facebook do it now and I might seed something about google at the appointed time.
That sucks. Sorry ta hear it. Freedom of speech is important, It sucks when private organizations censor us. But it is their right so.... I thought about starting my on chat room, But had no idea even where to start so.... But when I did a "nation" at nv I insisted it be non censored... nv disagreed they still censored my nation.
I dont know that I've ever been banned anywhere but on some of the nations back at nv. My posts at Fox just disappeared as soon as I posted them. that was frustrating as hell Till I knew it was basically fruitless. Then I just stopped going there.. What really sucked is I had watched the chatroom before I started posting. when I first started I was slamming parts of Obama I didn't like, when i eased off and became more neutral my posts started being poofed before long I couldn't get anything to stay up, even going back to slamming Obama, They had my number...lol.
My buddy that recently blew me off of over 20 years had been banned from facebook, yahoo and google.
I wasn't too surprised though HA, he could be downright rude and hateful about some stuff and it seemed to get worse the older he got. So...
He also has a hell of a time keeping a job. Poor guy. O well.
Yep freedom of speech !!! Lose it, we've lost ourselves.
After thought, I also stay off of the news sections of goggle, yahoo, and face book I just used nv and now NT.
How were you censored on Google or Facebook?
I have no idea about HA, But the friend I spoke of told me his posting privilege was put on hold at first for days then weeks as warnings. He could read he couldn't post or thumps up . Like can be done here. After enough holds he was banned, for like months... After that I have no idea.
My experience at Fox was different, They just stopped allowing my posts to stay up. Period .......
(I've heard its changed at Fox I Haven't been back. )
My specific experiences are only here and daily kos. The others I was speaking generally about other conservatives experiences there.
They probably had similar experiences as my friend did. I dont know though he seemed to enjoy pushing them buttons on people. lol
I have a feeling though he didn't play nice sometimes.
To put it nicely,
lol
Well they had congressional hearings on censorship at Google recently and a democrat congress man from California openly advocated for content control of people’s free speech rights. Of course he wished he could regulate Fox News too.
Wow, that's sad.
When I hear that someone has said something like that I question their sanity to a degree. Seriously.
This country's backbone is freedom of speech.
I try not to give people advocating for what I consider insane shit much attention or credence. Unfortunately what used to be a reasonable division of America is and has been being destroyed by the insanity of the fringes (on both sides) gaining attention and even some acceptance from some in parts at least of the wingers.
That has diminished the power of the moderates who basically were the peacekeepers and helped keep us as a whole country reasonably moving forward in a responsible manner. OR at least more so than I've been seeing for many years now.
That's part of why as a person who does want to, works at and does see some advantages and disadvantages of both sides and ideologies this EXTRA division concerns me. As You have probably seen me saying ... one land mass cannot effectively be TOTAlly governed by two parties at the same time.
I'm not real great at some stuff but two sides each ruling one whole at the same time. sounds like a car wreck to me.
Two cars sure cant control the same space at once either.
LOL .. And by now, I gotta be off topic once again. Some how.