More Riots in Portland; Twitter Censorship Out of Control

Protesters Start Fire in Street near Federal Courthouse, Police Threaten Arrests

One thought on “More Riots in Portland; Twitter Censorship Out of Control”

  1. Concerning big tech censorship of Conservative voices – I have a suggestion for how to quickly and relatively painlessly remedy this vexatious situation:

    America could simply unilaterally revise their end-user licensing agreements, (EULAs) as the big tech firms themselves routinely do to their own users!

    Since all current CHARTERS OF INCORPORATION are granted with only a few CONDITIONAL CATEGORIES PROHIBITED from them “discriminating” against – mostly some inherent qualities like race, ethnicity, place of origin – and also others which are more suspect and optional like religion and ‘gender’ – right now neither Trump nor any other besmirched and banned, censored politician or public figure has any authority over “private companies!”

    But that could easily be changed to deny them business licenses if they act contrary to the First Amendment (and, for good measure, throw in all the other Constitutional Amendments so they ALL apply to any and all businesses who want to operate under Federal aegis and jurisdiction, too). That’s something that should have been already done long ago.

    Also, many corporations are already now routinely discriminating on the basis of race and gender. It’s flaunted in their mission statements, such as jobs advertised as “We particularly welcome applications from women and minorities.” That is workplace discrimination.

    Ditto for government-funded universities and colleges (which, as they do receive public funds, act as agents of the government anyways).

    Right now, duplicitous governments often engage in ‘Rights Laundering’ because by using private third party firms, the US government is able to circumvent the Rights it must uphold by using a proxy, which I think violates the spirit of the intention of the Constitution on the First Amendment.

    So, for example, imagine if the US government explicitly hired third party security contractors, and they beat up some guy. Replace ‘third party security contractors’ with, say ‘the military’ or ‘the police’ – surely if the law applies the second two, it should also apply to the first?

    No-one would deny that a third-party firm is acting on the US government’s behalf in that capacity. They’re paid by the US, directed by the US, and complete objectives for the US, so why are they exempt from law?

    Likewise, if the US finances Universities, and the Universities then go on to beat up some guy, or silence him, it’s as if the US government themselves had done it. It doesn’t matter if the University is ‘third-party’, the US government knew there was a risk of censorship and/or violence the moment they financed them. Given how often it occurs, it’d be impossible to claim otherwise.”


Comments are closed.