The leftist fucktards over at Slate, just published an article demanding social media companies be regulated. The problem is that they are demanding the kind of regulations that would further restrict free speech.
Communications infrastructure, particularly when that technology has a broadcast function, is powerful. People are able to use it to misinform and spread hate to an audience in the millions every day. People also rely on social media to get information to make decisions about where they’ll send their kids to school, their health care, and whom they’ll vote for. Politicians who are thinking now about what to do about the mess that social media has become might find inspiration in policies that guided broadcast technology for decades—policies rooted in an understanding that corporations that want to make as much money as possible will always prioritize profits above all else. Protecting the safety of their users will always come second. That’s where laws are supposed to come in. It’s time we got some.
The author named April Glaser who may or may not be a kike, claims that freedom of speech isn’t the same thing as freedom to broadcast.
Freedom of speech isn't the same as the freedom to broadcast and amplify that speech. I wrote about how public interest obligations over US broadcasters work and why it's such a useful frame when thinking about social media regulation https://t.co/g3Kdxgmx8Q
— april glaser (@aprilaser) June 7, 2019
That statement definitely sounds like something a kike would say. She is trying to create a distinction without a difference. There is literally no difference between these two things. And having the government restrict specific people having the ability to reach audiences while enabling others to reach those same audiences gives a certain group of people greater free speech rights. This is against the spirit of the First Amendment which guarantees the same free speech rights to everyone.
But basically, the article promotes this idea that the government needs to restrict speech on the Internet in the name of public safety. What a bunch of bullshit that is. Free political speech and the spread of specific ideas is not a threat to public safety. This is far different than people calling for a specific person’s death or trying to organize a hate mob after somebody. Those are not lawful activities and are unrelated to free political speech. Plus, these illegal activities are almost always orchestrated by anti-fascists and other leftist groups.
And besides, the more you restrict free political speech, the greater the chance there is for violence. This alone makes the entire argument surrounding public safety so comical. If they were concerned about public safety, they’d be adopting our position advocating for a maximum amount of free political speech.
Unfortunately, what we have going on right now are private companies in Silicon Valley stifling the political speech of millions of people. The government needs to regulate them in such a way where they are required to give universal access to everybody. All voices should be on a level playing field. That’s the only solution to this problem. But it is not surprising to see Slate try and capitalize on the Steven Crowder situation to call for even more draconian forms of censorship.
What a bunch of dipshits these people at Slate are. They can all get fucked for all I care.
