I am voting for the people who didn't mandate an experimental gene therapy that has injured/killed millions.
My Body My Choice - right? (they knew it didn't stop transmission when they mandated it so the argument that it was a contagious disease doesn't apply)
I am voting for the people who want to preserve Freedom of Speech and respect healthy debate of ideas from all people to get to the correct conclusions. Let the people decide. We need a free marketplace of ideas. Even ideas we don't agree with. The Truth always rises to the top.
Why is the Left so hell bent on shutting down debate? Could it be that they are afraid of what Truths will emerge? Are they afraid they will be exposed as liars and fraudsters? Are they afraid of losing control over the masses?
It really boils down to this: one party is talking about freedom of speech and free markets. The other is talking about censoring speech and controlling free markets. Those two freedoms are existential to our success as a republic and people should shudder at their suppression.
The absence of the fairness doctrine is also affecting how the news is reported. Aside from censorship the MSM continues to carry water and state lies in their obvious bias towards Harris. Kristin Welker should be fired from Meet The Press unless they want to rename it Meet The DNC! She defended Harris with the following lie during an interview with Senator Cotton about the Gold Star families. - “Well, they did met with them during the dignified transfer, they were there with them at the dignified transfer.” The DNC needs no press coverage to support their candidate that got zero votes in the primaries. The Press already is doing an excellent job for them.
Congress needs to step in and shine the spotlight. There should be a requirement that all communications between the government and social media platforms regarding suppression/removal of messages or individuals (aside from valid law enforcement actions which can be confidential during the investigation, but released when the case is closed) must be publicly reported. Would even a censorship-friendly president dare to veto such a sunshine law?
What has happened to our country? Is there no one other than Elon Musk willing to put their fame or fortune on the line to protect our constitutional rights? Hey Mark Zuckerberg, why don't you shut down Facebook in Brazil to protest their censorship. Show some courage you mealy mouth apologist. Where the hell are the politicians screaming for sanctions against Brazil. Our current vice president thinks that free speech is a privilege. It's always the right that needs to be censored, never the left, yet it's the leftists that burn down our cities and take over college campuses and destroy things. What's happening in democracies around the world is frightening to me.
This is likely to be an unpopular opinion on this site but I agree with that individual users should not be able to sue the government if a social media platform chooses to NOT post comments. Twitter etc are private companies. They have the right to use their property as they see fit - which includes deciding to NOT post a comment etc from a user. The user has no right to claim or demand that social media (or any other platform) has the obligation to post whatever the user wants.
Yes, of course, a social media platform may (and certainly has been) under pressure from government. And that is wrong. But, no privately owned social media platform has the obligation to post anything it doesn't want to. So unless the government makes it illegal for a post (that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment) to be displayed, an individual user should not have the right to sue the government because no rights have been breached.
It's true most companies like this do have the right to NOT post / publish but they don't really have the right to say we are not posting this because you have violated lets say election interference which was defined by the the Democratizes like they did with the Biden laptop . So the problem is how to navigate ideas of whats good for the general public and what not to publish and how is that defined . If you read meta general guide lines https://about.meta.com/regulations/ there is the idea that they are protecting you when they are editing what you can see in a political direction . So you should be able to sue based on this false narrative of protecting you , they are not . If Meta just said we reserve the right not to post anything at anytime for any reason then they would be safe , but they would never do this because people would leave them and thus they lie and that you could sue for , if it caused harm .
If a company didn't want a law suite , they would change there rules to be absolute but they won't and thus you have a case to sue for a lie that would cause harm and trust me people do and can sue . This is more of a lie issue on Meta part , in that there rules say they can edit/delete posts for the general good , when that is not easy to define and thus they will lie and open them self's up to be sued .
I appreciate that individuals (both as individuals and as part of the general public) need no "protection for our own good" (either from gov't or social media), but whether it is a false narrative or not, the terms of the agreement between a platform and its users is just that: terms of AGREEMENT.
It is just as important to recognise how important property rights are when arguing for Free Speech. No user has the right to demand that a platform has the obligation to post the user's comments. That would be a violation of the platform's property rights and against Free Speech (the platform is exercising its own Free Speech rights if it chooses not to post a comment).
'More: Musk’s companies have been hit with subsidy cuts (Starlink), and forced recalls (Tesla) on apparently gratuitous grounds.'
On an article on free speech abuses, Ms. Shrier is simply wrong in attempting to tie Musk's Tesla's recalls as some kind of government example of harassment. People have died in expecting Teslas to self drive, lawsuits abound - and the government is correct in investigating how the company tried to market a feature that has proven to be unsafe. I would urge Abigail not to turn on the autopilot in a Tesla while driving one and then go on to read a book, the outcome might not be any way related to the suppression of free speech..
Will we be seeing an companion article on Trump and his social media record? He essentially fired FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly for expressing an unwillingness to go along with his call to strip social media of their First Amendment right to edit/moderate/delete posts as they see fit. Another more Trump- compliant FCC commissioner, Brandan Carr, continues to push for FCC regulation of social media. You can read all about it in Project 2025. This post is not meant to excuse Harris and Walz, but to point out that Trump's respect for the First Amendment is no greater.
I have actually asked some of my democratic friends about the “murthy vs missouri “ censorship” case (held up by an appeals court before it was overturned by the supreme court) and was surprised (but not surprised) to find out none of them felt strongly about free speech. contrary to the old liberal movement - which arose out of distrust of the government - modern democrats view big government as ultimate authority and do all they can is step into line. this is why they condemn any opposing view as “misinformation” and why they have no problem that joe biden was removed as the 2024 candidate once polls showed he could not win the election and unilaterally inserting a previously unpopular candidate. this is very concerning- and unless republicans can start to focus on the consequences of this rather than “hot button” talking points such as transgenders on sports teams to lure independents we will continue to lose elections and move more in the direction of an authoritarian system (in what the democrats refer to as the effort to “save democracy “)
It even happened to a friend of Elon Musk's. He left his state, CA, the next day. But, he must have had a very cool head and resources.
"@elonmusk
"Earlier this year, a friend of mine almost had his young daughter taken from him in California just because he wanted her to wait a few years to permanently transition.
He talked the police out of taking her when they came to his house.
Hi nsj, I agree with you that free speech is the biggest issue. And, like you, my Democrat friends seem to no longer value it. At the same time they claim the orange one is a "threat to Democracy" - & it is weird how they seem to have complete faith in government so long as the Democrats are in charge.
Plus, I don't really care about sports much at all - although I know many people like them and I understand unfairness. But - May I ask you to answer what a "transgender" is please? People around me seem to feel it is a sort of fancy new "gay" even though the ideology says sexual orientation does not matter. Or, they assume it's just a small number of the transexual men we knew of old who suffered from a sad but rare mental disorder.
I ask because today's Parents with Inconvenient Truths about Trans is about "When or if CPS comes knocking regarding not affirming your child's gender identity, here is some guidance." We now have a situation where kids are taught "anti-racism" and "gender" in schools, then they come down with a case of it, then they are affirmed behind the backs of their parents, then the state can take them. That is a major problem because in addition to Free Speech the state should not own your child.
# 1 rule: Don't answer the door for any strangers. Make it a rule in your house with your kids. Never leave your child home alone for any reason when dealing with gender identity issues.
Stay behind a closed door and ask, “Who is it?”
If they say it is CPS you can say "We don’t open the doors to strangers. How can I help you? Please put your business card on our doorstep and we will contact you later.”
If you do happen to open the door:
Pause and take a breathe so you do not say anything you will regret. The most important thing to do is remain calm. Speak to them in a calm and respectful manner. CPS is not allowed to enter your home without a court ordered warrant signed by a judge. You can ask why they are coming to your home. Ask them for identification and proof of credentials. They are not allowed to speak with your child. Assume that the worst can and will happen if you let them in your home. You have the right to postpone a visit. They have to make an appointment with you before they can enter your home. You may make arrangements for an in-home visit for another day. Only if needed and let them know you will be contacting a lawyer.
I really don't understand how democrats don't ask themselves "what would Trump do with this kind of censorship power?". This is what conservatives should have thought in the early '00s with the PATRIOT Act, because it's being used against them now.
The coverup of President Biden’s physical and mental abilities is an example of media suppression of information due to government control of the press & social media. When will they be held accountable? Hopefully at the ballot box.
Well also their audiences are dropping at an alarming rate. Witness the Washington Post, a newspaper nothing like it was under the Graham family. They have lost $100 million! But we have proof that the inmates are running the asylum because a recent management candidate dropped out because the inmates don’t get that you need to MAKE money to pay bills and employees! So the MSM and other legacy media entities doing yeoman’s work for the DNC are paying a price with their horrendous bottom line! Even a billionaire like Bezos can only afford to lose $100 million per year for so many years before something is done. Nothing like the bottom line to show they are indeed being held accountable!
Freedom of speech is allowing people you hate to say things that you hate.
Whenever someone says, "I love free speech....but... people shouldn't be able to say <XXX>".
My reply is "Imagine a world where your worst enemy gets to decide <XXX>"
I am voting for the people who didn't mandate an experimental gene therapy that has injured/killed millions.
My Body My Choice - right? (they knew it didn't stop transmission when they mandated it so the argument that it was a contagious disease doesn't apply)
I am voting for the people who want to preserve Freedom of Speech and respect healthy debate of ideas from all people to get to the correct conclusions. Let the people decide. We need a free marketplace of ideas. Even ideas we don't agree with. The Truth always rises to the top.
Why is the Left so hell bent on shutting down debate? Could it be that they are afraid of what Truths will emerge? Are they afraid they will be exposed as liars and fraudsters? Are they afraid of losing control over the masses?
It really boils down to this: one party is talking about freedom of speech and free markets. The other is talking about censoring speech and controlling free markets. Those two freedoms are existential to our success as a republic and people should shudder at their suppression.
Curious as to why TFP The Race section (where this article is listed) https://www.thefp.com/t/the-race
Still doesn't have an update on how RFK Jr. suspended his campaign and endorsed Trump.
Aug 21: How Long Can Kamala Harris Avoid the Press?
Aug 21 - Sept 1: A LOT OF IMPORTANT THINGS HAPPENED IN THE RACE DURING THIS TIME BUT THE FREE PRESS HAS CHOSEN NOT TO REPORT ON THEM.
IS THE FREE PRESS NPR LITE?
Sept 2: Abigail Shrier: Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Our Government Censors
Is the Free Press really for everyone?
The absence of the fairness doctrine is also affecting how the news is reported. Aside from censorship the MSM continues to carry water and state lies in their obvious bias towards Harris. Kristin Welker should be fired from Meet The Press unless they want to rename it Meet The DNC! She defended Harris with the following lie during an interview with Senator Cotton about the Gold Star families. - “Well, they did met with them during the dignified transfer, they were there with them at the dignified transfer.” The DNC needs no press coverage to support their candidate that got zero votes in the primaries. The Press already is doing an excellent job for them.
A Shrier presents the Catch-22 of social media censorship in spades. This thoughtful and well written essay should frighten all of us. Peace.
Congress needs to step in and shine the spotlight. There should be a requirement that all communications between the government and social media platforms regarding suppression/removal of messages or individuals (aside from valid law enforcement actions which can be confidential during the investigation, but released when the case is closed) must be publicly reported. Would even a censorship-friendly president dare to veto such a sunshine law?
What has happened to our country? Is there no one other than Elon Musk willing to put their fame or fortune on the line to protect our constitutional rights? Hey Mark Zuckerberg, why don't you shut down Facebook in Brazil to protest their censorship. Show some courage you mealy mouth apologist. Where the hell are the politicians screaming for sanctions against Brazil. Our current vice president thinks that free speech is a privilege. It's always the right that needs to be censored, never the left, yet it's the leftists that burn down our cities and take over college campuses and destroy things. What's happening in democracies around the world is frightening to me.
This is likely to be an unpopular opinion on this site but I agree with that individual users should not be able to sue the government if a social media platform chooses to NOT post comments. Twitter etc are private companies. They have the right to use their property as they see fit - which includes deciding to NOT post a comment etc from a user. The user has no right to claim or demand that social media (or any other platform) has the obligation to post whatever the user wants.
Yes, of course, a social media platform may (and certainly has been) under pressure from government. And that is wrong. But, no privately owned social media platform has the obligation to post anything it doesn't want to. So unless the government makes it illegal for a post (that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment) to be displayed, an individual user should not have the right to sue the government because no rights have been breached.
It's true most companies like this do have the right to NOT post / publish but they don't really have the right to say we are not posting this because you have violated lets say election interference which was defined by the the Democratizes like they did with the Biden laptop . So the problem is how to navigate ideas of whats good for the general public and what not to publish and how is that defined . If you read meta general guide lines https://about.meta.com/regulations/ there is the idea that they are protecting you when they are editing what you can see in a political direction . So you should be able to sue based on this false narrative of protecting you , they are not . If Meta just said we reserve the right not to post anything at anytime for any reason then they would be safe , but they would never do this because people would leave them and thus they lie and that you could sue for , if it caused harm .
If a company didn't want a law suite , they would change there rules to be absolute but they won't and thus you have a case to sue for a lie that would cause harm and trust me people do and can sue . This is more of a lie issue on Meta part , in that there rules say they can edit/delete posts for the general good , when that is not easy to define and thus they will lie and open them self's up to be sued .
I appreciate that individuals (both as individuals and as part of the general public) need no "protection for our own good" (either from gov't or social media), but whether it is a false narrative or not, the terms of the agreement between a platform and its users is just that: terms of AGREEMENT.
It is just as important to recognise how important property rights are when arguing for Free Speech. No user has the right to demand that a platform has the obligation to post the user's comments. That would be a violation of the platform's property rights and against Free Speech (the platform is exercising its own Free Speech rights if it chooses not to post a comment).
'More: Musk’s companies have been hit with subsidy cuts (Starlink), and forced recalls (Tesla) on apparently gratuitous grounds.'
On an article on free speech abuses, Ms. Shrier is simply wrong in attempting to tie Musk's Tesla's recalls as some kind of government example of harassment. People have died in expecting Teslas to self drive, lawsuits abound - and the government is correct in investigating how the company tried to market a feature that has proven to be unsafe. I would urge Abigail not to turn on the autopilot in a Tesla while driving one and then go on to read a book, the outcome might not be any way related to the suppression of free speech..
Will we be seeing an companion article on Trump and his social media record? He essentially fired FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly for expressing an unwillingness to go along with his call to strip social media of their First Amendment right to edit/moderate/delete posts as they see fit. Another more Trump- compliant FCC commissioner, Brandan Carr, continues to push for FCC regulation of social media. You can read all about it in Project 2025. This post is not meant to excuse Harris and Walz, but to point out that Trump's respect for the First Amendment is no greater.
This is such an important article. I wish you could make it sharable to those who don't subscribe to the Free Press - everyone needs to read this.
I have actually asked some of my democratic friends about the “murthy vs missouri “ censorship” case (held up by an appeals court before it was overturned by the supreme court) and was surprised (but not surprised) to find out none of them felt strongly about free speech. contrary to the old liberal movement - which arose out of distrust of the government - modern democrats view big government as ultimate authority and do all they can is step into line. this is why they condemn any opposing view as “misinformation” and why they have no problem that joe biden was removed as the 2024 candidate once polls showed he could not win the election and unilaterally inserting a previously unpopular candidate. this is very concerning- and unless republicans can start to focus on the consequences of this rather than “hot button” talking points such as transgenders on sports teams to lure independents we will continue to lose elections and move more in the direction of an authoritarian system (in what the democrats refer to as the effort to “save democracy “)
P.S. Most of them are girls.
It even happened to a friend of Elon Musk's. He left his state, CA, the next day. But, he must have had a very cool head and resources.
"@elonmusk
"Earlier this year, a friend of mine almost had his young daughter taken from him in California just because he wanted her to wait a few years to permanently transition.
He talked the police out of taking her when they came to his house.
That day, he left California with his family.""
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1827372324913361271
Hi nsj, I agree with you that free speech is the biggest issue. And, like you, my Democrat friends seem to no longer value it. At the same time they claim the orange one is a "threat to Democracy" - & it is weird how they seem to have complete faith in government so long as the Democrats are in charge.
Plus, I don't really care about sports much at all - although I know many people like them and I understand unfairness. But - May I ask you to answer what a "transgender" is please? People around me seem to feel it is a sort of fancy new "gay" even though the ideology says sexual orientation does not matter. Or, they assume it's just a small number of the transexual men we knew of old who suffered from a sad but rare mental disorder.
I ask because today's Parents with Inconvenient Truths about Trans is about "When or if CPS comes knocking regarding not affirming your child's gender identity, here is some guidance." We now have a situation where kids are taught "anti-racism" and "gender" in schools, then they come down with a case of it, then they are affirmed behind the backs of their parents, then the state can take them. That is a major problem because in addition to Free Speech the state should not own your child.
https://www.pittparents.com/p/what-if-child-protective-services
# 1 rule: Don't answer the door for any strangers. Make it a rule in your house with your kids. Never leave your child home alone for any reason when dealing with gender identity issues.
Stay behind a closed door and ask, “Who is it?”
If they say it is CPS you can say "We don’t open the doors to strangers. How can I help you? Please put your business card on our doorstep and we will contact you later.”
If you do happen to open the door:
Pause and take a breathe so you do not say anything you will regret. The most important thing to do is remain calm. Speak to them in a calm and respectful manner. CPS is not allowed to enter your home without a court ordered warrant signed by a judge. You can ask why they are coming to your home. Ask them for identification and proof of credentials. They are not allowed to speak with your child. Assume that the worst can and will happen if you let them in your home. You have the right to postpone a visit. They have to make an appointment with you before they can enter your home. You may make arrangements for an in-home visit for another day. Only if needed and let them know you will be contacting a lawyer.
If you do not have a lawyer contact:
https://pacificjustice.org/about-us or https://adflegal.org/about
For more information: Download 12-steps-to-protect-your-children-from-child-protective-services
"“There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy,” Walz recently declared."
This guy was a social studies teacher?
Hey, my history teacher made ancient Egypt sound boring as hell...
I really don't understand how democrats don't ask themselves "what would Trump do with this kind of censorship power?". This is what conservatives should have thought in the early '00s with the PATRIOT Act, because it's being used against them now.
The coverup of President Biden’s physical and mental abilities is an example of media suppression of information due to government control of the press & social media. When will they be held accountable? Hopefully at the ballot box.
Well also their audiences are dropping at an alarming rate. Witness the Washington Post, a newspaper nothing like it was under the Graham family. They have lost $100 million! But we have proof that the inmates are running the asylum because a recent management candidate dropped out because the inmates don’t get that you need to MAKE money to pay bills and employees! So the MSM and other legacy media entities doing yeoman’s work for the DNC are paying a price with their horrendous bottom line! Even a billionaire like Bezos can only afford to lose $100 million per year for so many years before something is done. Nothing like the bottom line to show they are indeed being held accountable!