Democrats demanding censorship

I'm thankful for Jonathan Turley because he's consistently pro-Constitution. He isn't bashful about highlighting people, especially politicians, who aren't pro-Constitution. This morning, Prof. Turley's op-ed highlights politicians pushing censorship in Senate hearings.

In his op-ed, Turley wrote "In a Senate hearing where Dorsey apologized for blocking the Hunter Biden laptop story, for example, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) was more concerned about Twitter “backsliding or retrenching” on censorship and warned that Congress would not tolerate any reduction of “robust content modification.” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) reminded Dorsey that he expected censorship of misinformation on climate change as well as other areas."

Turley's op-ed continued, saying "Others, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have called on social media companies to use enlightened algorithms to protect people from their own bad reading choices. As shown in the recent Twitter releases, these algorithms manipulate what someone sees in searches or trending stories."

There are other examples of Democrat politicians speaking out in favor of censorship. Check this out:

In speaking to media figures in April, former President Barack Obama called upon “our better angels” to shape voters’ opinions. Similarly, President Joe Biden has said social media editors are vital to protecting citizens from their own misguided values or assumptions. Without enlightened editors, he asked, “How do people know the truth?"

Then there's this:

Former President Donald Trump was banned from Twitter the day after former first lady Michelle Obama and others demanded the company "permanently" remove him, according to the newest "Twitter Files" installment.
What happened to the Michelle Obama who said "when they go low, we go high?" This Michelle sounds more like she'd say "When they tell inconvenient truths, we silence them." Let's return to Sen. Warren momentarily. She was interviewed by Stephen Colbert:

During the interview, Colbert asked her about Elon Musk. Here's that exchange:
COLBERT: One of the people who you've had run-ins in the past and called out for his behavior in the past is strangely dabbling in conspiracy theories on Twitter is the new owner of Twitter, Elon Musk. You've never been a fan of billionaires, especially ones that don't pay their taxes. What about a billionaire who now owns the platform that is most used to promulgate political idea and argument, Twitter? WARREN: So I look at it this way: somebody is gonna make the decision about what we see on Twitter. It can be made out in the open. It can be made in public. It can be made by a commission. We could decide to do that. We can make the rules posted and out there for everyone to see. Or it could be made by 1 billionaire in a very dark room based on whatever is running around in the middle of his head.
That's frightening. First, Colbert shouldn't get away with the "especially billionaires that don't pay their taxes" BS. I'm old enough to remember the story of Elon paying $11,000,000,000 (that's 11 billion dollars for those of you in Rio Linda.) in federal taxes. Colbert knows this. It was a major story that even got covered by CBS, ABC and NBC.

Then there's Sen. Warren's intentionally dishonest statement that "somebody is gonna make the decision about what we see on Twitter." Actually, that's dishonest. Each person with a Twitter account should decide what's seen on Twitter. It shouldn't be decided by a commission. It shouldn't be made in public or private. It should be done individually. That's the beauty of the First Amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

TRANSLATION: Keep government and commissions out of our business. We're perfectly capable of exercising our individual rights without the government's help.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tim Walz's Confederate Flag Fiasco

Image
After Minnesota's Democrats shoved the most controversial progressive legislation down Minnesotans' throats, gossip started popping up about Gov. Walz being interested in running for president . That's died off but Gov. Walz is still making headlines, this time for all the wrong reasons. First, Gov. Walz isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Still, Gov. Walz is fighting against Minnesota's history. This Alpha News article quotes David Hann, the chairman of Minnesota's Republican Party, as saying " The flag the DFL has eliminated was a version of the historic flag our regiments fought under during the Civil War. Minnesota was the first state to offer troops to the Union cause in 1861 , beginning a long tradition of leading the nation in confronting injustice. The DFL quest to erase our history is repugnant and should be rejected." Gov. Walz, though, sees things differently. He's quoted as saying "Minnesota is a diverse state, it continue...
Read more

What is Kamala Harris afraid of?

Image
Apparently, Kamala Harris suddenly loves debating. Let me rephrase that. Harris loves debating as long as the moderators are partisan hacks. She wants nothing to do with a debate moderated by Fox's Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. She's afraid of Bret and Martha because a) they'll either fact-check both her and Trump or they won't fact-check either of them and b) Bret and Martha aren't afraid of asking follow-up questions. To a candidate whose answers are scripted and who isn't quick on her feet, the last thing you want is a follow-up question. Kamala fears follow-up questions like vampires hate wooden stakes, sunlight and holy water. Why has Kamala Harris avoided Fox News like the plague? The moderators/propagandists fact-checked Donald Trump aggressively but didn't fact-check Harris . Why didn't David Muir and Linsey Davis fact-check both candidates equally? Is it because Harris doesn't like fair fights? Perhaps she's just afraid of getting exp...
Read more

Why is Joe Biden letting Hamas off the hook?

Image
It isn't disputable whether Joe Biden's administration is letting Hamas off the hook. That issue was settled months ago, when a spineless Joe Biden caved to activists interested in saving Hamas and thwarting the Israelis' attempt to defend themselves. Gerard Baker's op-ed highlights what's at stake for the U.S. if the terrorists are permitted to survive. In his op-ed, Baker wrote "If, under the pressure of internal Democratic politics and global public opinion, the Biden administration forces a 'cease-fire' that leaves our closest ally in the region short of victory over an enemy that seeks to destroy it, sooner or later we shall all pay the price." It's time to revisit George W. Bush's speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, 2001. It's required that we remind ourselves of one of its most important paragraphs. In talking about who committed the atrocities of 9/11, President Bush identified al-Qa'ida as "a collectio...
Read more