Big Tech (Google, Facebook, Twitter) has been having its way with the law. On the one hand, they can’t be held accountable for anything published on their platforms, while on the other, they can unpublish whatever they want in the name of accountability. They claim the First Amendment protects this behavior.
Followers of such things will know that what stays tends to support the progressive agenda and what goes challenges it—Big Tech policies speech on these terms leveraged by the speaker’s reach. The more people appear to want to hear what you have to say; the more likely THEY will have to silence you.
First Amendment.
Texas passed a law that has yet to take effect because it dares to suggest that the First Amendment does not protect partisan viewpoint censorship. It is not. Big Tech says we’re private companies, and we can police whatever speech we please. They can. But then they can’t. And after reading several reports on the 5th Circuit decision in favor of the Texas Law, I have failed to find what, to my mind, is the correct response.
No one has mentioned how they abuse the law in two directions. If Big Tech can’t be held accountable for what they like, no matter how offensive to someone else (section 230), they can’t be held responsible for what they don’t.
They claim a First Amendment right to use viewpoint discrimination on public platforms based on political preference and little else, which doesn’t scare nearly enough people. Joe Biden just gave a speech about it. The Red Speech. It’s the same thing. Using your authority to define who or what is acceptable to those in power and who and what is not.
Biden dehumanized Republicans in the Red Speech. Big Tech dehumanizes people and their ideas with selective censorship. They are Dalit. The untouchables from India’s Caste System. The basis of order and regularity of society” until their Constitutions banned it.
Here, we find ourselves headed in the opposite direction. From a Constitution that protects opposing speech to a place where prohibiting it is normalized. But not in Texas.
The 5th Circuit says, “Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.” But they never mention the contradiction with Section 230 (Internet Decency Act), and maybe – given that it’s not part of the case, they can’t. But we can. And it’s ripe, low-hanging fruit.
I don’t think you can claim section 230 protection while enforcing viewpoint discrimination across the same platform. You can’t be both obsessed with protecting people from what you call hate speech while immune from prosecution for speech you allow that others find hateful.
The solution is to allow all of it and let the people sort it out with more speech. The alternative is what Big Tech and the Biden Administration want, and that’s more than just message control.
