A former Danish Prime Minister (working as a censor and blacklister for Facebook) is doing us all a huge favor. Helle Thorning Schmidt, a Facebook Oversight Board member, has declared that free speech is not an absolute human right. How you may ask, is this a gift?
A committed leftist, working for a leftist social media monstrosity, says that they (Leftists) must limit (political) speech they oppose to protect other human rights. And oh, by the way, the left has already made all speech political.
“What we’re trying to find, of course, I think many of us engaging in this conversation, is that middle road. How do you moderate content and how do you find that balance between human rights and free speech, which is a human right, but also other human rights because free speech is not an absolute human right,”
“It has to be balanced with all the human rights and that is what the oversight is there to do,” she added.
This is more third-way BS from the masters of the BS Universe, but as I noted in the reopening, it is not without potential. The Censorship board is attempting to add legitimacy to the old practice of silencing opposing opinions.
Helle Thorning Schmidt claims that this “is a completely new invention to do this work,” but every tyrannical regime in human history has “done this work” to the detriment of humans and their rights. In fact, there is a direct correlation between what Thorning Schmidt advocates and a precipitous decline in quality of life, life expectancy, financial mobility, and even the most basic human rights.
A true middle road (for example) would permit scientists or their research or opinions to be presented to encourage debate on public health or climate topics. But share unapproved content that cuts across the grain of the preferred narrative on either, and you can expect to get flagged, tagged, and bagged by the “oversight board.”
You can rinse, wash, repeat with every other topic issue, and then use this fact to your advantage. If this middle-of-the-road garbage is legitimate, let’s get Democrats on the record.
Around 80% of Americans, including many Democrats, approve of limiting or banning third-trimester abortions – making it a very middle-of-the-road position. Should far-left speech that insists on abortion up to birth be suppressed?
A majority of Americans disagree that climate change is a serious issue – shouldn’t people fearmongering climate conditions have their ideas suppressed?
Most Americans agree that the current open borders strategy favored by Democrats is dangerous and destructive to both Americans and the so-called refugees crowding the border. Should Democrat narratives supporting the current policy be flagged or restricted?
The obvious answer to any of these questions is no, but why? Because more speech is always better even when you may not like or agree. It also demonstrates that there is no third way. When the Left talks about the middle ground, they mean their ground or no other.
This is nothing more than an exercise by ruling class scolds determined to control what people see and hear. It is the narrative of Mao, Castro, Chavez, Stalin, and even Hitler. And what follows is no different.
And until you make it financially irresponsible for them to take this course, they will continue to pursue it.