Category Archives: Free Speech

UPDATE II (12/21/021): NEW COLUMN: Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech (Part 3)

Free Speech, Individual Rights, Justice, Labor, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Natural Law, Political Philosophy, Private Property, Republicans, Technology, The Courts, THE ELITES

Leave a reply

NEW COLUMN: “Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech,” is now on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews, and The New American.

This column is Part 3 of a 3-part series. Read Part 1, “Big Tech’s Financial Terrorism And Social Excommunication” and Part 2, “Justice Thomas’ Solution to Big Tech’s Social And Financial Excommunication.”

An excerpt:

It is inarguable that by financially crippling and socially segregating, and banishing politically irksome people and enterprises—the Big Tech cartel is flouting the spirit, if not the strict letter, of the Civil Rights Act.

For how do you make a living if your banking options are increasingly curtailed and constantly threatened, and your ability to electronically communicate with clients is likewise circumscribed?

Do you go back to a barter economy (a book for some bread)? Do you go underground? Cultivate home-based industries? Do you keep afloat by word of mouth? Go door-to-door? Return to stamping envelopes? How can you, when your client base is purely electronic?

Telling an individual he can’t open a bank account on account of the beliefs and opinions swirling in his head teeters on informing your innocent victim he might not be able to make a living, as do other, politically more polite Americans, and despite his innocence: Our only “offenses” as dissidents are thought crimes, namely, speaking, or typing or wafting into the air unpopular, impolite words.

“[I]n assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power,” Justice Clarence Thomas has argued, “what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.”

To paraphrase this Supreme Court jurist: Sure, there are alternatives to The Big Tech, but these make a mockery of the outcast. It would hardly be hyperbole, in driving home Justice Thomas’s point about comparability, to put it thus:

With respect to financial de-platforming, barring someone from PayPal is like prohibiting a passenger from crossing the English Channel by high-speed train, via ferry and by means of 90 percent of airplanes. “Have at it sucker.”

By Deep Tech decree, some Americans are worth more than others, based not on their actions, but on the voiced thoughts in their heads. This cannot stand.

The letter of the law needs changing. Do it.

Civil Rights Act

Thus, the preferred remedy to Deep Tech depredations would build upon existing Civil Rights Act jurisprudence.

As a reality-oriented conservative libertarian, I inhabit and theorize in the real world. From the conservative-libertarian’s perspective, Barry Goldwater got it right. Civil Rights law is an ass, for it infringes on property rights. But the onus is on flaccid Republican lawmakers to ensure that that ass can be ridden by all equally (with apologies to adorable, much-abused donkeys for the cruel metaphor).

These are existing laws that are already enforced. I see no reason to reject the application of civil rights solutions to wicked, woke bullies because existing laws that’ll never be repealed go against my core beliefs. What is libertarianism? The art of losing in life because of a slavish devotion to theoretical purity? …

… NEW COLUMN, “Centralize Liberty: The Solution To Wicked, Woke Tech,” can be read now on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews, and The New American.

UPDATED (10/26/021) I:

UPDATE II (12/21/021) II: “Berenson v. Twitter“:

Twitter is indisputably a messenger service. A longstanding California law regulates messenger services as “common carriers.” This means that they must accept all messages they receive. Twitter thus must accept all tweets it receives. It has no First Amendment rights to refuse them on the basis that it does not agree with them.
A federal law commonly called Section 230 “preempts” the California law, giving Twitter the right to reject tweets or ban users. (Whether that right is universal or whether Twitter must act in “good faith” in restricting service is a separate question; whether Twitter acted in “good faith” in this case is still another question. But put those issues aside for the moment.)
Section 230 is what enables Twitter to claim a First Amendment privilege that supersedes the California law and restrict my own First Amendment right to speak; thus federal courts have the right to review 230 on First Amendment grounds.

MORE.

It’s Taliban Tube, Not YouTube (And Gab’s Torba Is Truly Free)

Conservatism, COVID-19, Free Speech, Healthcare, Internet, Kids, Media, Technology, THE ELITES, The Establishment

2 Replies

Intelligent people have lost trust in mainstream medicine for many reasons. Cool heads have no trouble detecting sub-intelligent “argument” for the power-play and propaganda that it is.

Put it this way: When I hear an outstanding, empathetic clinician and academic such as Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, author of “Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection” and tens more peer-reviewed publications on COVID—and then I hear TV’s tenured medics, or the mediocre, unquestioning medics manning the clinics into which we are all herded—losing my lunch is not the only response.

The McCullough medical school of thought saves lives; the rest contribute to iatrogenic death. (Look iatrogenic up.)

Deep, abiding, irredeemable contempt springs eternal for the thought process in these mediocre medical minds and the attendant abuse of power and harm to patients.

Now, David Vance, my partner in the Hard Truth podcast, has exhorted that, “If It’s On The Mainstream Media, You Should Ignore It.” David had published these mild words on Taliban Tube, aka You Tube, and was promptly sent to the dog house for the next 2 weeks: banned.

Fuck the DemoPublican Establishment’s war to civilize the Taliban, when an exhortation to think critically about media, the mediocre medical establishment, and experimental treatment is marginalized and punished. A society of social casts is being created, says David: Those who obey blindly, and those who cling to the freedom to question.

But, he says, “The sheep are delivering us straight to the abattoir.” And the young people have, sadly, been a cohort readily inclined to accept authority and follow orders at all time.

Thankfully, Rumble has featured David’s apparently subversive common sense, “Never trust ANYTHING the lame-stream media says!”

Gab’s Andrew Torba, however, has observed, in a quibble with Dan Bongino, that Rumble is NOT free; It has Hate Speech “codes.” Likewise Parler. In fact, for me, being on Parler has been like being coffined. I like Twitter much more, even though I am shadow-banned there.

In fact, since I’m a Candace Owens critic, I strongly suspect I’m shadow-banned by Parler, owned by Mr. Owens. The feeling I get from feedback or lack thereof on Parler is Establishment Republican. There is no place on Parler for true dissidents and free thinkers.

Gab is absolutely and truly free. There, people connect and keep connecting. Parler, as I said, is like being coffined. If the GOP Establishment think making Parler hostile to people like me is good for their endeavor; think again. The numbers of thinking conservatives and paleolibertarians who hate what Ned Ryun called the “credentialed Idiocracy,” on TV and in DC—is growing.

MSNBC Celebrates Deep-Tech Speech Crackdowns. Republicans Did/Do Nothing About Deplatforming

Business, Free Speech, Individual Rights, Media, Republicans, Technology

Leave a reply

On June 4, 2021, one of MSNBC’s egos in an anchor’s chair said this:

“Social media giant is cracking down on politicians and speech. But is it too little too late?”

I transcribed the statement verbatim but it is not easily found as a URL hyperlink.

This is how illiberal mainstream liberalism has become. And it raises no eyebrows. How dare the US pose as a free society?

My point here, however, is contrarian. Again and again you will hear conservatives, politicians and pundits, complain on Fox News about the calamitous censorship by Deep Tech, as if it’s a problem that began with the Biden Administration.

De-platforming (of a president, no less), banning of legions of powerless dissidents, including detrimental financial de platforming, “occurred in a country with a Republican President, a Republican-controlled Senate, a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees, and a majority of whose state legislatures and governors are Republican.”

Republican solutions—anti-trust busting or the repealing of Section 230, which they refused to do when they were in control of both houses, and the presidency, all bandied about shallowly on Fox News—do not begin to address de-platforming, cancellation of dissidents, including the infringement of the right to make a living. (See sub-section, “Flouting The Spirit Of Civil Rights.”)

 I’ve done some theoretical rethinking. More to come.

*Image courtesy here.

Ben Domenech: Selling Soothing, Snake-Oil Conservatism On FOX News Primetime

Argument, Conservatism, Donald Trump, Free Speech, Israel, Political Philosophy, Race, Racism, Technology, THE ELITES

2 Replies

With Ben Domenech’s somnambulist, soothing, well-articulated, Establishment conservatism, Fox News is lulling viewers back into a meaningless, middle-of-the-road, political impotence.

And a load of claptrap.

Last night, June 5, Big Tech censorship was obviously panned vigorously for speech oppression, but an Israeli actress ensconced in Hollywood got to make allusions on air to her preference for censoring anti-Israel comments, when those are uttered by people lacking “expertise” on Israel. More philosophical bunkum, but certainly in line with neoconservatism’s Israel First position.

Americans—certainly this writer, who is pro-Israel—support unfettered speech! That used to be the American position—which includes the rights of people to express anti-Israel positions no matter the state of their expertise, which the silly sabra seemed to be demanding as a condition for speech on Israel.

Discussed too was the incitement to murder whites, expressed by a deviant at Yale, Aruna Khilanani. This, according to panelist Liz Wheeler, was best understood not as murderous anti-whitism needing to be aggressively combated, but with the aid of her unscholarly, unlearned allusions to the Frankfurt School… Wheeler’s ignorant theoretical escapism will help your life as much as voting Republican did.

In this context, Lynette Ackermann asked me, “Ilana, Have you any suggestions for a new paradigm for the 21st century?”

Reply: “What I am strongly suggesting in my commentaries about anti-whiteness is… keep it real. When it comes to anti-whiteness—a very serious, grave reality—you need a scrappy strategy, not a paradigm.” No theoretical escapism!

But the worst slot belonged to Douglas Murray, much revered for his accent and inchoate, wishy-washy positions. The segment dealt with Facebook’s verdict to ban Donald Trump for another two years. (Frankly, President Trump had not stood up for voters like myself, whose websites are banned for life, presumably, with no ability to appeal. And the former president’s response to Facebook’s Nick Clegg was, to put it charitably, puzzling: “Next time I’m in the White House there will be no more dinners, at his request, with Mark Zuckerberg and his wife. It will be all business!”)

Likewise, for his part, Domenech evinced great concern over Facebook curtailing the power of politicians; not so much about the power of the people curtailed.

But Murray is really something. The sassy, salient line he repeated again and again on the live broadcast—it doesn’t appear in the Fox News online video—was this: The Big Tech meddlers are “not fit for purpose“:

“… it is high time we make it clear that we cannot and will not live under the rules of Big Tech. They are not up to the job that they have taken upon their shoulders to perform.”

The premise of that statement is that, while Deep Tech is not up for the job;  someone is up for the job of censor and speech adjudicator. On display here is “Bic Con” deception, Tory deception, too. These establishment conservatives do not trumpet absolute free speech: Richard Spencer’s, Nick Fuentes’, Tommy Robinson’s, Michelle Malkin’s, mine. They seldom come to the defense of dissidents. For this reason, Murray is wont to make a stupid (cleverly worded) statement:

“We are dealing with kids here,” he said, adding “these companies got everything about the last year wildly wrong” and citing Big Tech’s censorship of the Wuhan lab leak theory.

Crystal clear premise once again of the Murray fatuity is this: If Deep Tech were more mature and accurate in their prediction (Murray awoke pretty late in life to most truths, too)—they might be in a position to adjudicate which speech if fit for consumption, which not.

Wrong. Absolutely wrong, but well-spoken.