Let’s All Sue Big Tech!
Holding Them Accountable
For Squelching Freedom of Speech
Repeating what they did in 2018 when a group of Big Tech Internet Platforms “coincidentally” (or conspiratorially) during one 24 hour period first banned Alex Jones’ speech (but not advertisements from him) and then over the ensuing days banned thousands of other “conspiratorialists”, our 2020 Plague Year has just had its own Great Purge.
Over the past two weeks initially YouTube began mass bannings, especially of dissident political videos and then Facebook joined in the orgy of bannings.
I know. I was one of those banned. All my political opinion postings were gone, with no appeal allowed . But they didn’t stop there. All my personal photos and all my connections to my wide-spread family and friends were gone too. I became a Facebook Banned Unperson. While I felt violated, I was also freed from Facebook shadow banning and mind control .
Being violated and mind control seems to be the new norm in America and across the world. But there are good folks out there who will not simply take whatever our would-be controllers want. People are speaking up and they are getting ready to sue.
Item: Whistleblower reveals Google’s “Hate Speech Committee” which appears to control the algorithms that delete what the committee considers to be “objectionable” materials. It has been revealed that half the members of the committee are mainland Chinese Nationals and therefore individuals who are subject to Chines Communist Party control or influence. Get that: half of the committee that control what you can find on Google are foreign nationals from a totalitarian state. Learn more here: www.punchgoogle.com — expect litigation and support it at the noted link.
Item: Another group of hundreds of people banned from Facebook and YouTube have banned together under the Inglorious Patriots label, pledging to be plaintiffs in litigation against Social Media Censorship.
Item: Gmail (a division of Google) just censored an email about vaccine truth sent to Dr. Rima. Here is what censorship looks like in America, circa 2020:
Item: The Federal Communications Commission has, finally, agreed to consider how Big Tech censors speech on the Internet. President Trump had a formal Petition submitted to the FCC at the end of July, demanding that the agency improve enforcement of the law that protects free speech on the Internet . This author filed formal Comments with the FCC supporting the Petition and calling for immediate action by the agency to protect the integrity of the coming election .
Here is what the FCC lawyer posted: “…Chairman Pai noted that ‘[m]embers of all three branches of government have expressed serious concern about the prevailing interpretation’ of Section 230, and observed that an overly broad interpretation could ‘shield social media companies from consumer protection laws in a way that has no basis in the text’ of the statute.”
Dr. Rima and I joined an Emergency Conference on Internet Censorship yesterday. Powerful and committed lawyers such as [redacted] were also present, along with a number of leading freedom advocates. The consensus is that litigation against Big Tech must be started over the next few days, seeking an injunction forcing the Social Media Platforms to stop censoring political and opinion speech, and scientific discourse.
The Federal agencies, like the FCC and FEC are not to be immune from accountability either. The agencies must take care the laws are faithfully executed, according to the Constitution.
The law is clear. The Social Media may not censor the speech of their users. These public utilities are protected from liability for the content their users post if they do not monitor or moderate that speech. However, there is a bit of a loophole in the law, called Section 230, that lets the companies remove pornography and “otherwise objectionable materials.” Big Tech has driven its Big Censorship Tank right through the loophole, claiming anything they do not like is “objectionable” although normal rules of interpreting statutes tell us that such “otherwise” must be like pornography, which does not include political and opinion speech, and scientific discourse.
Apparently the Supreme Court agrees.
Day before yesterday the High Court refused to take a case from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, leaving that decision standing . What did the Appeal Court say? That Section 230 cannot be read so broadly as to allow Big Tech to ban whatever it wants. The court said the clause is not “limitless.” Justice Thomas dissented noting that the High Court has not reviewed Section 230.
It appears that the time is ripe for litigation to protect freedom of speech when it is threatened by “private companies” who are not really private actors, but rather, are quasi-public utilities that must respect our communications. Imagine if the telephone companies could refuse to let you place a call because they did not like your beliefs. Imagine if an electric company cut off your lights due to your political opinions. Unbelievable, but the position Big Tech is taking.
Time to hold them accountable.