Who Needs Free Speech When You Got Sharia Already?

They finally BANNED #TommyRobinson from EVERY platform.

SHARE this disgrace.

This is happening in the UK. But it’s an American company that’s doing it. Do you really double they will do this to Americans next? Alex Jones was first. Now Tommy Robinson. We’re about 12 months away from, say, Tucker Carlson.

 

TR.NEWS

BREAKING: YouTube BANS Tommy Robinson

YouTube has placed shocking new restrictions on Tommy Robinson’s channel, removing his videos from search
.
Like the EU and UK, Australia is sliding towards a totalitarian state. Instead of protecting our basic human rights, we see sophisticated spying on citizens, so-called hate speech laws, censorship and persecution for voicing patriotic views – and now this.

When even the regressive left media voices concerns, you know this is seriously bad legislation.

Stop this Orwellian nightmare. Share, support and join www.vote1ala.org

SBS.COM.AU
Warnings over rushed social media laws
Law Council president Arthur Moses has urged politicians not to rush through legislation cracking down on social media broadcasts of violence.
.
.

Democrats are fawning over Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s call for “new rules” to regulate internet companies like his — and that should worry every freedom-loving American.

Don’t be fooled. This is not some humbled executive begrudgingly accepting that his industry needs regulation. This is one of the richest men on earth inviting the American government to help him do what he already wants to do anyway.

Let’s be perfectly clear: Every single regulatory measure Zuckerberg is calling for would benefit his company, his political allies, and himself personally. At best, regulation would just deflect from the unsavory practices of Facebook and its competitors; at worst, it would enlist government sponsorship for those practices.

Democratic Sen. Mark Warner greeted Zuckerberg’s announcement by saying he was “glad to see” that “the era of the social media Wild West is over.”

Of course, when Warner refers to the “social media Wild West,” he’s not talking about tech giants routinely censoring and shadow-banning conservatives, banning memes that lampoon their journalist friends, and blatantly discriminating against Republican candidates during election campaigns.

No, Warner means the Wild West of relatively unbridled free speech that allowed millions of Americans to crack the consensus forged by the political establishment of both parties in 2016.

Continued below.

YouTube restricts Tommy Robinson channel

“I believe in free speech, so long as the state is allowed to arrest those who say the wrong things.”– Titania McGrath

Tommy Robinson, aka Stephen Yaxley-Lennon
Social media platforms have steadily restricted how Mr Robinson can use them

YouTube has placed more restrictions around the video channel of English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson.

Clips uploaded by Mr Robinson have been removed from search results and he is blocked from streaming live events via the site.

Messages warning that his videos may not be appropriate for all viewers will also play before clips.

YouTube had already, in January, decided to suspend adverts on Mr Robinson’s channel.

It had imposed the further restrictions after talking to external experts and academic researchers about the types of videos shown on the channel, reported Buzzfeed.

“We are applying a tougher treatment to Tommy Robinson’s channel in keeping with our policies on borderline content,” it told the news site.

Buzzfeed said the steps taken by YouTube would make Mr Robinson’s videos “undiscoverable” unless followers sought them out specifically.

The latest action comes after politicians called on YouTube to follow other social media companies in limiting the exposure Mr Robinson enjoyed on their platforms.

Mr Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, has also had pages on Facebook and Instagram removed.

Last year, he was banned from Twitter and Paypal ceased processing payments on his behalf.

And he is now thought to rely on email and Snapchat to correspond with followers.

Not sure how we ended up under a tyrany of say 5 or so global companies that control all the information flows. Furthermore, each of those 5 companies is global giant, and has a clear business reason to promulgate globalisation.

The Tommy Robinson supporter is working class white. The person who hates him is the upper class person, the police, the state, the multiculturalist. The person who thinks Britain should be open to immigration and you can’t criticize Muslims.

Continued:

When he says “the Wild West is over,” Warner means just what Google’s CFO meant when he promised to “use the great strength and resources and reach we have to continue to advance really important values,” just days after President Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton.

Those on the left are determined to prevent a repeat of the 2016 presidential election, which is why they are so adamantly pushing for more censorship online. It’s just their luck that they have a potential ally in Zuckerberg, a man who would love to throw this hands up and say, “Hey, the government handles that.”

In his Washington Post op-ed, Zuckerberg calls for an “independent body” to do his censorship for him and decide what “counts as terrorist propaganda, hate speech, and more.”

Zuckerberg actually has the gall to write, “Lawmakers often tell me we have too much power over speech, and frankly I agree,” asserting that while internet companies should be “accountable for enforcing standards on harmful content,” those standards should be dictated by government officials.

To be sure, outspoken conservatives such as Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley have demanded answers from Big Tech regarding its ever-tightening campaign of censorship against the political right and Silicon Valley’s exploitation of its power over the main forums of modern public discourse to potentially swing elections — but their point has been that censorship of any kind is an affront to the American people. Zuckerberg’s response, however, is to propose more censorship, not less.

It’s all ridiculous. We don’t need leftist bureaucrats to tell us what we can say on the internet any more than we need leftist tech executives to police our speech. We don’t need an “independent body” to protect us from “harmful content” — we already have the Supreme Court, the First Amendment, and 100 years of precedent to guide our governance of public forums.

These are plenty sufficient to prohibit viewpoint-based discrimination while banning illegal acts such as calls to violence and allowing private platforms like Facebook to enact reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions according to their taste.

Sen. Hawley, for instance, has proposed that the special privileges Facebook enjoys under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act be conditioned on it serving as a viewpoint-neutral public forum. For some reason, though, that’s not the kind of regulation Zuckerberg is interested in.

Zuckerberg’s other “concessions” are no less self-serving. His call for greater transparency in political advertising, for instance, is laughable. Zuckerberg argues that we already have sufficient regulation of ads run by candidates and parties, despite the fact that Facebook infamously bannedRepublican ads in 2018, but he asserts that we need stronger rules governing ads about “divisive political issues where we’ve seen more attempted interference,” feeding into the Democrats’ absurd narrative that a few Russian Facebook ads explain Hillary Clinton’s defeat.

In a perfect illustration of the globalist corporate mindset, Zuckerberg also calls for importing privacy laws from the European Union, where people are routinely thrown in jail for social media posts, arguing that “effective privacy and data protection needs a globally harmonized framework.”

Luckily, the regulators President Trump has put in place are wise to Zuckerberg’s game. As FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr put it, “When large corporations call for greater government control, it’s not usually an act of charity.”

That’s exactly the sort of hard-headed realism we need to protect our fundamental rights, as Facebook and other Big Tech companies ramp up their campaign of anti-conservative censorship, especially now that Zuckerberg is trying to enlist liberal politicians with tremendous power as allies in that effort.

Brad Parscale is the campaign manager for Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

4 thoughts on “Who Needs Free Speech When You Got Sharia Already?”

  1. Becoming all we have left is Gab being honest with a simple statement Islam has a problem with some when it comnes to Terrorism and child molestation got me banned from Twitter something I see as a badge of Honor.
    So Like Tommy I am a Gab person

  2. Misery loves company and ignorance demands conformity.
    Globalist gangsters are thought-killing psychopaths. They hate and fear “painful” thinking in them selves and in everyone else, too.

  3. Their static double standards models of paranoid masochism – where everyone else is always out to get them so they’re always victims – initiate victim-blaming slanderous attacks against everyone else all the time.

    They want pleasure without pain, hope without fear and rights without responsibilities. They want equality of outcome – the right to own what you have earned, but not the equality of opportunity to earn it – because that would be too painful. Their hypocrisy is that they claim to want this for everyone else, too – but such double standards of ever-increasing their entitlement to have rights without responsibilities can only ever be achieved by offloading their own responsibilities onto their intended victims by depriving them of their rights to defend them selves from the slavers’ attempts at their intended enslavement.

  4. Re: “a perfect illustration of the globalist corporate mindset” – ALL gangster/enslaver “mindsets” are the EXACT same, whether they be directly “corporate,” “government,” “media,” “education system” etc ones – all such gang or group CONFORMITIES rely on human HYPOCRISY – the pretended desire TO GO ALONG (with criminal lies) TO GET ALONG (with scary lying criminals).

    And naturally, not a single one of them ever truly believes in what they’re trying to sell to others to swallow.

Comments are closed.