As you may have heard by now, several personalities, including Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, Gavin McGinnes, Milo Yannopoulos and Louis Farrakhan were permanently de-platformed by Facebook on Thursday, with the most heavily-sanctioned entity being Alex Jones' Infowars, which had already been de-platformed last year.
Like the others, Paul Joseph Watson had never broken Facebook rules but as an associate of Alex Jones and Infowars, he was deemed guilty by association. Like him, you too can now be banned from Facebook for sharing too many stories from the Infowars website!
What was really sick is that the usual suspect Far Left outlets, like BuzzFeed, in full coordination with Facebook published their stories about this mass de-platforming before many of the de-platformees were even aware that they'd been de-platformed! The entire move was actually rolled out as a celebratory publicity stunt.
CNN's Nicaragua-born Never-Trumper "Republican", Ana Navarro was ready to go Thursday afternoon on ABC's The View, cheerleading Facebook and commenting about the de-platformees, "I want them shut down, I want them silenced, I want them muted. I think they are horrible for our society."
Indeed, that Globalist engine known as Silicon Valley appears to be proceeding at a fast clip with their Chinese-style, social credit form of political and behavioral control. It's as if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 Election.
The upside is the fertile discussion now unfolding, with mathematician, Kathy Neiheisel tweeting to remind us that US Tax Dollars funded the precursor to Facebook known as DARPA's Lifelog project and that the American people are technically the owners of its R&D. She asks, "How was this gifted to Zuck and Jack? How dare those platforms limit speech when the USA taxpayer funded the R&D?"
For his part, President Trump issued multiple tweets deploring the banning and the demonetization of several Internet personalities in recent years, saying, "I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America — and we have what's known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!"
To which Paul Joseph Watson responded pithily: "Thank you Mr. President. Now hopefully Facebook will be stripped of its immunity under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act because it is clearly acting as a partisan publisher and not a platform. This is election meddling."
Watson is referring to section 230, tucked inside a 1996 law that attempted to regulate pornography. Section 230 is also known as the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, which states in part, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
In other words, this section immunizes both ISPs and Internet users from liability for torts committed by others using their website or online forum, even if the provider fails to take action after receiving actual notice of the harmful or offensive content.
In other words, there is no US law forcing these Big Tech behemoths to impinge on the law of the land, that being the First Amendment. These tech giant censorship initiatives are purely extra-judicial. Their actions therefore make them publishers and not the "public square"-type platforms they claim to be and as publishers, they would be subject to an altogether different set of laws, including Copyright Infringement, which alone if enforced could shut down all social media, instantly!
I looked high and low for the best video to explain what's happening and by far, the best one detailing this situation was done last night by Tucker Carlson, who explains what an outrage it is that a 34-year-old guppy worth $72 billion and completely cut off from the world can decide to roll back the First Amendment after 250 years (even if Zuck is a fake cardboard cut-out minion of his Globalist overlords).
Tucker is joined by journalist Chadwick Moore, who explains how Paul Joseph Watson's case against Facebook could become incredibly contentious, due to the UK's much stronger Libel laws (whereas in the US, Libel is weak, due to the First Amendment).
