The far-left free speech monopoly

This entry was posted in Freedom of speech. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to The far-left free speech monopoly

  1. Behind Enemy Lines

    Pat’s on fire. Time for the revolution. Don’t acquiesce to the lies – fight back, one honest statement at a time.

  2. Tom

    With its roots in communism, it was inevitable that the Western left would evolve from the freedom-fighting left into the totalitarian fascist left — the 21st century’s Fourth Reich. The fascist zombies who run Silicon Valley are living proof of Marxism’s successful subversion and dumbing down of the Western education system since World War Two. This video is an excellent explanation of the roots of modern fascism in the rivalry between Russia’s Stalinist communism and Germany’s national socialism under Hitler. H/T Mater.

  3. Iampeter

    Private companies exercising their property rights and free speech isn’t violating anyone’s free speech and has absolutely nothing to do with “political censorship” or “police states”. Obviously.
    Only the government can violate free speech.
    He then goes on to call for tech companies to be regulated because they have “unearned” power and uses every Marxist fallacy from “cartels” and “monopolies” to help justify it.

    Like most conservatives today, this guy is another politically illiterate, leftist.

  4. Jonesy

    So….US anti-trust laws are actually socialist?

    Whodathunkit…monopolies are ok? The ebil Murdock empire is ok? Concentration of communication control is ok as long as it is private hands?

    Having said that…I choose to use this platforms..facebook/google/youtube but I am very wary of political bias in any unverified results

  5. Jonesy

    The one funny thing about the message…Zuckaberg and his ilk would be the first against the wall come a socialist revolution…the state just would not allow that type of power in individual hands!

  6. Iampeter

    So….US anti-trust laws are actually socialist?

    Yes.

    Whodathunkit…monopolies are ok?

    Capitalists.
    And anyone who is generally not economically illiterate and can think properly, knows that monopolies are OK.

    Concentration of communication control is ok as long as it is private hands?

    Yes.

    Australia’s leading libertarian and centre-right blog, where entry-level libertarian and centre-right concepts have to be explained and re-explained in every thread.

  7. bespoke

    Private companies exercising their property rights and free speech isn’t violating anyone’s free speech

    When the government coerces companies to restrict free speech like Google making a search engine for China or France imbedding government officials in social media boards then we have a problem. That’s a Nation Socialist dream come true.

  8. Iampeter

    When the government coerces companies to restrict free speech like Google making a search engine for China or France imbedding government officials in social media boards then we have a problem. That’s a Nation Socialist dream come true.

    You can’t BOTH oppose government coercing private companies and at the same time call for government to coerce private companies, like Pat and those supporting this video are doing.
    You’re trying to have it both ways.

    The Nationalist Socialist dream come true is today’s appalling, conservative movement, who basically agree with fascists and socialists, but are so confused about everything, that they don’t see it.

  9. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Private companies exercising their property rights and free speech isn’t violating anyone’s free speech

    It does when they are public platforms and virtual monopolies.

  10. bespoke

    You can’t BOTH oppose government coercing private companies and at the same time call for government to coerce private companies

    I don’t I would rather the government be restricted to being the umpire. As for monopolies they would only last a short time if the government didn’t have a roll in creating and maintaining them because of competition. We would be driving black model t’s still.

    PS: save the diversionary hooks I’m not biting.

  11. struth

    You’re a dumb fuck, that’s for sure, Iampeter.
    You refuse to learn.

    As for the video, it all starts in our schools.

  12. The problem for social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and so on, is that they claimed they were privately owned platforms to which the public were invited to freely converse, as opposed to private publishers of this or that curated opinion. And then they decided they wanted to censor that conversation, for instance, by preventing people on Twitter referring to ‘transgender’ persons by their actual biological sex or ‘pre-pre-transition’ name. That certainly appears, prima facie, as a violation of my speech rights.

  13. The BigBlueCat

    Only the government can violate free speech.

    Utter crap! Monopolies, either governmental or private, do it all the time. Zippy is perfectly correct when he says:

    It does when they are public platforms and virtual monopolies.

    We see it all the time when various people make statements on Facebook or Youtube, and then have their comments taken down and they are banned. De-platforming is the left’s tactic for ensuring voices counter to their narrative aren’t heard. To them, it’s all about Shut Up!.

  14. struth

    You’re either a platform or a publisher.
    There are already laws regarding what they are doing.
    The plain and simple fact is that, due to corporatism (corruption) as long as they do what the left wingers like Merkel and most governments want, they are immune from making that distinction.
    Imagine what would happen if non corrupt government made them declare either way?
    Those governments want google, facebook, etc under their control.
    They don’t want them operating lawfully.
    They want them just as they are, a free run for the left, and the right banned.

  15. The BigBlueCat

    dover_beach
    #2901496, posted on January 8, 2019 at 8:40 am
    The problem for social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and so on, is that they claimed they were privately owned platforms to which the public were invited to freely converse, as opposed to private publishers of this or that curated opinion. And then they decided they wanted to censor that conversation, for instance, by preventing people on Twitter referring to ‘transgender’ persons by their actual biological sex or ‘pre-pre-transition’ name. That certainly appears, prima facie, as a violation of my speech rights.

    I agree. If they are publishers and want to censor, then they should be held to account for what they publish. If they are not publishers, then they shouldn’t censor (except for very clear legal reasons, and even then they need to act with caution).

    Bill M has been regularly “sin binned” by Facebook for comments made by others; he’s been held accountable because he’s drawn the ire of others as seen in their comments, yet his posts are classically Christian conservative in nature. Bob Santamaria wouldn’t even get a look in these days ….

  16. bespoke

    I don’t I would rather the government be restricted to being the umpire. As for monopolies they wouldn’t exist if the government didn’t have a roll in creating and maintaining them because of the competition . We would be driving black model t’s still if Ford had the same regulatory and free advertising large social media has now.

  17. bollux

    A clear example of how effective the propoganda has been at schools and universities are the inane comments of someone like Iampeter. Important that we don’t censor the Left so we know they are out there and who they are.

  18. Iampeter

    A publisher exercising their editorial judgement doesn’t qualify as “censorship” either.
    Only the government can censor you.
    Not that it matters, since a hosting company choosing what content they are hosting, doesn’t magically change their business to one of publishing. So if Facebook decides they don’t want porn on their platform, they are obviously not “censoring” anyone and have not transformed into a “publisher”.

    You guys are confusing free speech for censorship and are calling for censorship while thinking you’re fighting for free speech. This level of clueless, self contradiction and downright stupidity, makes those responding with ad hominem to me, as usual, look even worse, when you wouldn’t think it would be possible.

    On top of all that, all of you would shamelessly be making the exact opposite arguments, if tech companies were Christian organizations and wanted to deplatform LGQBT content, for example.

    Pat’s video and those agreeing with it, literally have no idea what they are talking about and have no business writing, blogging or commenting, on anything to do with politics.

  19. Rusty of Qld

    We either have free speech with no censorship where a person may say what they like, bearing in mind libelous or defamatory statements, ask whatever questions one desires an answer to or we do not have free speech. It’s that simple, one or the other or it’s censorship applied by Government or private company to deny you your birthright of free speech. The question is then what are they afraid of by denying free speech?

  20. dover_beach

    A publisher exercising their editorial judgement doesn’t qualify as “censorship” either.

    No one has disputed that, in fact, they have stated that clearly above.

    Only the government can censor you.

    This, as it stands, is a bald assertion.

    Not that it matters, since a hosting company choosing what content they are hosting, doesn’t magically change their business to one of publishing. So if Facebook decides they don’t want porn on their platform, they are obviously not “censoring” anyone and have not transformed into a “publisher”.

    But porn is not quite conversation. If Twitter decides that people talking among themselves on their publicly available platform cannot refer to biological men as men, that is, prima facie, censorship.

    You guys are confusing free speech for censorship and are calling for censorship while thinking you’re fighting for free speech.

    More dissembling. If I criticize Twitter over their censorship policy mentioned above, it is only because they are passing themselves off as a public platform and receiving certain rights and privileges therein while also acting as if they were publishers while avoiding the legal obligations, etc. that publishers must abided by.

    On top of all that, all of you would shamelessly be making the exact opposite arguments, if tech companies were Christian organizations and wanted to deplatform LGQBT content, for example.

    Not at all. If Twitter admits that it is not a public platform, but in fact an ideological square for like-minded individuals, it would be within its rights to remove ideological opponents from their platform.

    It’s not that complicated.

  21. Kneel

    “A publisher exercising their editorial judgement doesn’t qualify as “censorship” either.”

    FaceChook claims they:
    “Connect you with people and organisations that you care about:”
    “Empower you to express yourself and communicate about what matters to you:”
    “Help you discover content, products and services that may interest you:”
    They make no mention of political affiliation – political persuasion is not mentioned as a “protected attribute”, so they feel free to censor it.
    Fine – do that, but change your advertising to reflect reality –
    “Connect you with people and organisations that you care about (as long as we like them)”,
    “Empower you to express yourself and communicate about what matters to you (unless we don’t like what you say)”,
    “Help you discover content, products and services that may interest you (providing we approve of the content, product or service)”.

    Peter, they are either common carriers (in which case they can’t censor) or they are content providers (in which case they are responsible for what they publish) – can be both, but not at the same time (they can have censored and uncensored parts, eg). They want to be able to censor, and they also want to claim that they are not responsible for what is published. Sorry, doesn’t work that way. Unless and until someone forces them to legally choose which they are, they will continue to choose whichever one suits the current situation – that means, complaints about content are answered with “we didn’t create the content” and complaints about censorship are answered with some bullshit fluff about “safe spaces”, “protected attributes” and other crap.

    They will find that, just as with other progressive “helpers”, they will be dumped without notice as soon as it is politically expedient to do so and/or they make even a small concession to conservatives and dare to allow them a voice.

    Remember too, that Zuckerberg testified to the US senate that they deliberately played down bad news about Clinton and played up bad news about Trump – they tried as much as possible to influence the election outcome, and like the other “progressives”, they were shocked – shocked I say – that DT won.
    Oddly, there was no indication that such obvious and seld-admitted political bias was in any way “bad” – most likely because it was in favour of the loudest whingers – progressives!

  22. Social networks are modern day public squares (or that’s how they present themselves and get a free pass on regulations that apply to publishers).
    Take the famous Hyde Park in London. Anybody can enter it, stand on a soap box, and sermonise as much as they like. Those who wish to stand there and listen, do so. Those who don’t, move on.
    If the government (which has responsibility over Hyde Park) stops you from entering the park to speak your mind, that’s censorship.
    If a bunch of BLM or Antifa thugs stop you from entering the park to speak your mind (de-platform), that’s not censorship because……err….because…well they just ain’t gubmint innit?

    If the operators of these public squares (Facetwitoogle) de-platform you because they disagree with what you say, that’s not censorship because….errr….they’re not gubmint innit?

    According to Imp (who has banged on about this on numerous occasions, despite the many valid arguments presented to him) censorship is all about who does it, not at all about restricting voice.

    If it’s only the government who can censor, then it must follow that it is only government who can restrict freedom of association….right Imp?
    So if I tie up Imp, keep him in a small dark room and stop him from associating with someone I don’t like, that’s not a restriction on his freedom to associate because…….well…..errr……I’m not gubmint innit?

    Pig headed and too stupid. Just too stupid.

  23. max

    the Causes and Character of America’s Present Predicament start with dogma : “We the People”

    William Appleman Williams:

    Under the leadership of Madison, the … convention of 1787 … produced (behind locked doors) the Constitution. Both in the mind of Madison and in its nature, the Constitution was an instrument of imperial government at home and abroad.

    “We the people”

    The new god of the Constitution was both suzerain and vassal- something covenantally unique in the history of man prior to 1787.

    “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    Article VI

    if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans.

  24. Confused Old Misfit

    IamP has been, to quote Mr. Condell, “taught by ignorant teachers and ignorant professors, educated, stupid people, who think they know best because they don’t know any better.”
    He has become like them.

  25. Only the government can violate free speech

    What is this madness?

    If I set fire to a bloke doing public speaking, it’s not a violation of free speech coz I’m not a guvmint.

    It takes a very special kind of idiot to dream up such inanities.

  26. if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans.

    Alternatively, they could just be fake Christians.

  27. Confused Old Misfit

    William Appleman “Bill” Williams was one of the 20th century’s most prominent revisionist historians of American diplomacy, and has been called “the favorite historian of the Middle American New Left”. He achieved the height of his influence while on the faculty of the department of history at the University of Wisconsin–

    Wickipedia.
    Another of the “…educated, stupid people, who think they know best because they don’t know any better.”

  28. Iampeter

    Social networks are modern day public squares

    You could think of them this way metaphorically and they might even refer to themselves that way in their marketing, but they are literally not “public spaces”.
    What they are, is called private enterprise and those of us who aren’t leftists don’t want to regulate them.
    This is without getting into the whole Marxist, appeal-to-public-space, type of arguments you confused leftists constantly throw out.

    So if I tie up Imp, keep him in a small dark room and stop him from associating with someone I don’t like, that’s not a restriction on his freedom to associate because…….well…..errr……I’m not gubmint innit?

    Yes. Obviously. Why are you saying this like it’s a gotcha? Just how stupid are you?
    This would be some kind of crime like “assault” or “kidnapping” but it would never be a “censorship” or a “freedom of association” issue, because that only relates to restricting government action. In fact, this example is WHY this is obvious. If things like censorship meant what you think they mean, then ALL crimes would be “censorship” and all murderers and thieves would carry the “crime of censorship” on their rap sheets. Most human activity day-to-day, would then also constitute censorship. Didn’t hire someone, didn’t offer someone a deal, demanded someone leave your property, etc, EVERYTHING would be censorship, rendering the concept pointless.
    This is why censorship is something ONLY a government can do. Concepts like “freedom of speech” mean freedom from government regulation of speech NOT other private citizens exercising their rights.

    This is so obvious and basic, the fact that it needs to be explained to grown men who spend years blogging about politics and claim not be leftists, is so breathtakingly ridiculous.
    This stupidity is then overshadowed by how you idiots will continue to double down on something you are obviously, embarrassingly and totally wrong about.

  29. Stimpson J. Cat

    Build your own platforms and web hosters and payment options you whining fools
    – Any Libertarian.

  30. Confused Old Misfit

    Stop Assuming that Everything You Feel or Think Is Right”—An Interview with Robert Greene

    For IamP.

  31. stackja

    COM – IMP doesn’t understand commonsense.

  32. Confused Old Misfit

    One tries Stackja.
    One tries.
    But one is reminded of the title of Steve Kates’ most recent posting:
    “How does one deal with people this ignorant?”

  33. The BigBlueCat

    Confused Old Misfit
    #2901770, posted on January 8, 2019 at 3:05 pm
    One tries Stackja.
    One tries.
    But one is reminded of the title of Steve Kates’ most recent posting:
    “How does one deal with people this ignorant?”

    The answer is … you don’t. You deal around them.

  34. Iampeter

    Switching to projection to cover for embarrassing, total ignorance, does not help your situation.

  35. You could think of them this way metaphorically and they might even refer to themselves that way in their marketing, but they are literally not “public spaces”.

    The “interwebs” is a public space. Anyone can hop on. The “interwebs” was not established by Twatter or Gargoyle BUT THEY OPERATE ON THAT PUBLIC SPACE.
    If Gargoyle established its own interweb, say one that has the address ggg.gargoyle.private as opposed to THE PUBLIC SPACE http://www.gargoyle.com, then it would be private space.
    So yes, they ARE literally public squares because they operate IN public squares.

    This would be some kind of crime like “assault” or “kidnapping” but it would never be a “censorship” or a “freedom of association” issue, because that only relates to restricting government action.

    Speech and association are issues of liberty. There are laws regarding ‘deprivation of liberty’. You claim only the gubmint can deprive someone of their liberty. Patently false.

  36. dover_beach

    The “interwebs” is a public space. Anyone can hop on. The “interwebs” was not established by Twatter or Gargoyle BUT THEY OPERATE ON THAT PUBLIC SPACE.
    If Gargoyle established its own interweb, say one that has the address ggg.gargoyle.private as opposed to THE PUBLIC SPACE http://www.gargoyle.com, then it would be private space.
    So yes, they ARE literally public squares because they operate IN public squares.

    Not quite. I agree that the internet is a public space, but Facebook is only one to the extent that they have sought and obtained the privileges of a utility that the would not otherwise enjoy as a publisher and passed themselves off as a public space available to the public. If they now want the right to censor discussions on their platform for this or that ideological end they are entitled to only if and not before, they lose all the privileges owed to them as a utility and begin operating with all the rights and obligations of a publisher. Before then, they are certainly censoring illegitimately.

  37. stackja

    IMP knows ignorance it seems.

  38. Iampeter

    The “interwebs” is a public space. Anyone can hop on.

    It’s just like breathing right? The internet is just a feature of nature. This is how Marxists viewed industrial projects.
    You seem to think because you need something, someone should be forced to provide it. Again, you are basically a Marxist.
    In any case, tech companies are not “public spaces” and are exercising their rights when they kick someone off their platforms. These rights include, free speech and freedom of association.

    Those calling for this to be regulated, like Pat in the video and those agreeing with him, are calling for censorship and violation of free speech, freedom of association, property rights and individual rights in general.

    You are far worse leftists than anyone in Silicon Valley.

  39. dover_beach

    The internet is just a feature of nature.

    Public spaces are not features of nature.

    You seem to think because you need something, someone should be forced to provide it. Again, you are basically a Marxist.

    Nope, he didn’t say that at all.

    You need to stop lying.

  40. bespoke

    Imp, do you think the government has the right to curtail free speech if so please give some examples?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.