By: Brian Evans

As Google, Social Media Sites, and the rest of the tech world actively work to eradicate Conservatives, Christians, and pro-Trump supporters from the internet, millions are asking, just when is someone going to take action, and demand Big Tech be held accountable for their strategic targeting and censorship of their ideological opponents in America!

Breitbart News reported

In an op-ed titled “Don’t Let Google Get Away With Censorship,” radio host and founder of Prager University, Dennis Prager, explains why the situation surrounding the regulation of tech firms and online speech is so complex.

In the op-ed, Prager states:

PragerU releases a five-minute video every week. As of this writing, 56 of its 320 videos are on YouTube’s restricted list. They include videos such as “Israel’s Legal Founding” (by Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz); “Why America Invaded Iraq” (by Churchill biographer Andrew Roberts); “Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?” (by the Somali-American women’s-rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali); “Are the Police Racist?” (by the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald); and “Why Is Modern Art So Bad?” (by artist Robert Florczak).

We have asked Google why our videos—which contain neither violence nor pornography nor any kind of hatred—are restricted. We know that human beings, not “algorithms,” have reviewed these videos. Yet we have never received an explanation.

Prager notes that Big Tech platforms are protected by Section 230 of the CDA, which grants them immunity from lawsuits for acting as “neutral platforms” instead of publishers…

But Google and the others have violated this agreement. They want to operate under a double standard: censoring material that has no indecent content—that is, acting like publishers—while retaining the immunity of nonpublishers. When YouTube puts PragerU’s content on the restricted list, when Twitter bans conservative actor James Woods, they are no longer open forums.

Richard Hanania, research fellow at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University, undertook a study of Twitter political bias and concluded: “My results make it difficult to take claims of political neutrality seriously. Of 22 prominent, politically active individuals who are known to have been suspended since 2005 and who expressed a preference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, 21 supported Donald Trump.”

Breitbart goes on to mention that…

Prager takes issue with conservatives not willing to stand up against the Masters of the Universe because such ideological censorship wouldn’t be accepted anywhere else in society. 

In fact, Prager stated…

The unwillingness of some conservatives to confront some of the most dangerous attacks on free speech in American history is disturbing. Do they think Google, Facebook and Twitter—the conduits of a vast proportion of the free world’s public information—don’t act on their loathing of conservatives?

If the four major U.S. airlines announced they would not allow passengers carrying The Wall Street Journal to travel to some American cities, would any conservatives or libertarians defend the airlines’ right, as private companies, to do so?

Social media is not simply a communication tool anymore. It is a toy that kids play with, a necessity for business people and communities to communicate. It is both a luxury and a necessity. And even more problematic, is how the Progressive-Socialists are utilizing social media and media giants like Google as a weapon. A weapon that is being embraced in the war for control of the information we see, hear, learn, and know. As the Mainstream Media has continued to fill the airwaves with false and misleading information about those who oppose Progressive-Socialism, Conservatives, and leaders like President Trump have embraced its potential to counter the ‘fake news’ onslaught. Real information is a commodity that has been increasingly difficult to find, especially with the left being so prone to manipulating information, in such a way that allows them to push their communist agenda while camouflaging their moves, and they do all this at the expense of American freedom and prosperity.

While Progressive-Democrats have been fighting to censor social media and internet speech through the use of ‘net neutrality’, private social media companies, and other avenues, Conservatives have fought them by tackling the problem head-on. A method that has proven to be unfruitful and end in disappointment, and bitter failure. As a result, the Progressive-Left has not only had free reign to increase and shape regulations, but they have censored opposing voices, despite Constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

Then came President Trump. who introduced a new approach towards the Progressives. He embraced ‘perpendicular thinking,’ where instead of taking them head-on, he moves perpendicular, which throws off not only Progressive-Socialist Democrats but Fabian-Socialist Rino Republicans as well. This keeps them dazed and confused and allows him to beat them at their own game, ultimately forcing them to take a stand with ridiculous positions. With that in mind, President Trump has been staying several steps in front of his opposition, and now he is moving towards a solution to internet censorship.

Some have proposed to regulate the internet through the FCC, but that is riddled with dangers, because it would make the internet a public utility, and would be subject to regulation and potential censorship of free speech. Laws like ‘net-neutrality’ that was implemented by the Obama Administration. A move that was pushed for by both Progressive-Socialist Democrats, and Rino-Republicans, for obvious reasons.

Instead, President Trump is looking at another option. He would put the government in charge of regulation over the internet; however, instead of regulation of free speech, it would be set up as a consumer protection agency to fight against fraud. Similar to the fraud that is being perpetrated against those on social media who are being systematically targeted for suspension over their beliefs and rights.

Last year, on June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declared any restriction of speech based on the so-called “hate speech” allegations unconstitutional. They unanimously reaffirmed that there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment.

Justice Anthony Kennedy explains the decision by stating:

A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

Progressives have tried to subvert the Supreme Court’s decision by claiming that ‘private companies’ like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other private companies are not subject to the decision, and that they can follow their own rules and regulations. They claim that they can self-regulate, despite it being quite apparent that they are shutting out and silencing thousands, and likely millions of American voices. They are continuing to silence opposing voices in the name of ‘hate speech’, through the use of algorithms embedded in Facebook, Google, and Twitter coding. A clear violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling, and the Constitution of the United States.

However, if the Consumer Protection Agency was overseeing Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other media giants, they would be legally forced to discard their manipulative “hate speech” and other ideological filters and to allow a free flow of information. Otherwise, they would be sued by the Bureau of Consumer Protection for violating consumer rights. It will not be a fight that will be easily won, because it would deal an insurmountable blow to the left, as to their agenda. It would allow for a free flow of information, instead of a warped and one-sided narrative coming from the Progressive-Socialists. In addition to ending corruption and the suppression of free speech on social media and the mainstream media, it would also cripple anti-constitutional so-called ‘hate speech’ watchers like the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose fundraising is tied to how many Conservatives and Christians they can defame as “haters. ” In addition, they compile conservative blacklists, which are then used by Social Media giants and the Mainstream Media to target and silence Conservative and Christian oppositional voices.

Although fake news, Russian spam, and other trash do exist on the internet to stir anger and discord in America, real American’s must have their free speech protected. Spam and others who engage in such activities should be blocked, but Progressives are simply using them as an excuse to silence their opposition. Conservatives are opposed to any regulation of the internet but demanding that the government protect free speech by fighting fraud. Just as American’s have free speech rights off of the internet, American’s should have the same freedom of speech on the internet.

In fact, although the vast majority of speech is protected under the First Amendment, there are some important exceptions, which means that certain types of speech may be restricted by the government and civil actions may be based upon them. These same standards should be followed on the internet. According to Legal Zoom, the main exceptions to free speech protection include:

  1. Defamation (includes libel and slander): discussed in greater depth below.
  2. Obscenity: The Supreme Court test for obscenity is as follows: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
  3. Fighting words: As defined by the Supreme Court, fighting words are “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”
  4. Causing panic: The classic example of speech causing panic is someone yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater. Speech may be suppressed where a reasonable person would know that his speech is likely to cause panic and/or harm to others.
  5. Incitement to crime: Speech that spurs another to commit a crime.
  6. Sedition: Speech that advocates unlawful conduct against the government or the violent overthrow of the government.
  7. National Security: The government also has the right to restrict speech in order to promote a “compelling government interest,” such as national security. This standard is extraordinarily strict and hard to prove, making it a rather narrow exception to free speech.

Conservatives have to stop throwing a fit and start fighting back. They should fight back, not by simply reacting to attacks or fighting them head-on, like the days of our past, but by attacking them from a new angle. President Trump has been attacking them in new ways that have left Progressives and Fabian socialists angered and off-balance. He has incensed the left, simply because he has outmaneuvered them. Now it is time for conservatives to do the same. If we don’t, we will lose the information war. We will lose the war for the hearts and minds of Americans who are under a constant barrage of Progressive-Socialist lies and distortions. Conservatives and Christians should stop pretending that we’re not knee-deep in an all-out war, waged by the Left, against conservative media. We are at war, and if we don’t take a stand we will lose the war for the truth. We will lose the war for the minds of our fellow Americans. We will lose our freedom! We will lose the war for our children’s future. Therefore ultimately, we will lose our Constitutional Republic!