Trump: 'We As a Country Cannot Tolerate Political Censorship, Blacklisting, and Rigged Search Result

[libertybele]

Interesting. This comes after Soros article stating that Trump supporters will be silenced by 2020.

Trump: 'We As a Country Cannot Tolerate Political Censorship, Blacklisting, and Rigged Search Results'

Speaking at a campaign rally in Indiana Thursday night, President Trump added a new element to his stump speech -- political censorship.

He told the crowd that his administration is standing up for the free speech rights of all Americans, liberals and conservatives alike:

Very importantly, my administration is also standing up for the free speech rights of all Americans -- free speech rights. Look at social media. There's a thing called free speech rights.

You look at Google, Facebook, Twitter and other social media giants. And I've made it clear that we as a country cannot tolerate political censorship, blacklisting and rigged serach results.

And you know it can go the other way also. We will not let large corporations silence conservative voices. And it can -- it can go the other way too, someday. It can play little tricks with them. We're not going to let them control what we can and cannot see, read and learn from. We can't do that.

America is a free country. And we are going to stay always a free country............

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/trump-we-country-cannot-tolerate-political-censorship-blacklisting-and

[ABX]

We are a free country which means a private business should be free to put whatever product on their shelves they choose. If a Christian bookstore chooses not to put Buddhist books on their shelves, that's their right. If a BBQ restaurant chooses not to have a vegan options, that's their right. And if a search engine or social media site chooses to host, not host, promote, or demote content, that's also their right.

These businesses are not 'the public square'.

Those are private businesses and it is up to the consumer to decide if the service or product meets their needs, and  choose another service if it doesn't. If the business pissed off enough consumers, they will suffer and change.

But this is not any of the government's business.

[libertybele]

We are a free country which means a private business should be free to put whatever product on their shelves they choose. If a Christian bookstore chooses not to put Buddhist books on their shelves, that's their right. If a BBQ restaurant chooses not to have a vegan options, that's their right. And if a search engine or social media site chooses to host, not host, promote, or demote content, that's also their right.

These businesses are not 'the public square'.

Those are private businesses and it is up to the consumer to decide if the service or product meets their needs, and  choose another service if it doesn't. If the business pissed off enough consumers, they will suffer and change.

But this is not any of the government's business.

Government has no business in censorship under our First Amendment rights, but does the Government have the right to prevent censorship? 

It seems that censorship is being allowed on select groups of people (predominately conservatives) and infringement upon rights is also being allowed (FISA warrants, NASA, IRS, etc.).  Dangerous precedents in the courts have already been set and censorship as long as it applies to conservatives is being allowed. 

All Trump is stating is that should not be allowed.  As an example certain liberal groups have demanded and been granted equal protections under the law, but clearly conservatives have not.

[ABX]

Government has no business in censorship under our First Amendment rights, but does the Government have the right to prevent censorship? 

It seems that censorship is being allowed on select groups of people (predominately conservatives) and infringement upon rights is also being allowed (FISA warrants, NASA, IRS, etc.).  Dangerous precedents in the courts have already been set and censorship as long as it applies to conservatives is being allowed. 

All Trump is stating is that should not be allowed.

No, the government doesn't have the right to prevent censorship conducted by a private sector business or individual. Preventing censorship is censorship- it is dictating what content it carries. Does the government have the right to tell a Christian bookstore they can't censor satanic texts from their shelves? A bookstore choosing not to carry topics is private sector censorship and they have that right. Does the government have the right to come into your home and prevent you from censoring your child from using foul language? Does the government have the right to come to this website and tell us we can't censor out Democrat trolls?

Of course censorship happens to select groups. Liberal groups censor Conservative voices. Conservative sites like free republic for example, can censor liberal voices. Christian sites can censor Muslim voices...and so on.

That's the part of the First Amendmet people forget about- the right to free association.

[ABX]

Remember the old addage: beware a government big enough to give you everything you want because you create a government big enough to take away everything you have.

[libertybele]

No, the government doesn't have the right to prevent censorship conducted by a private sector business or individual. Preventing censorship is censorship- it is dictating what content it carries. Does the government have the right to tell a Christian bookstore they can't censor satanic texts from their shelves? A bookstore choosing not to carry topics is private sector censorship and they have that right. Does the government have the right to come into your home and prevent you from censoring your child from using foul language? Does the government have the right to come to this website and tell us we can't censor out Democrat trolls?

Of course censorship happens to select groups. Liberal groups censor Conservative voices. Conservative sites like free republic for example, can censor liberal voices. Christian sites can censor Muslim voices...and so on.

That's the part of the First Amendmet people forget about- the right to free association.

Agreed, but in looking at a larger picture, do entities like CBS, ABC, have the right to censor conservatives?  Does the IRS have the right to target conservatives?  These are very public entities.

[libertybele]

Remember the old addage: beware a government big enough to give you everything you want because you create a government big enough to take away everything you have.

The Constitution allows for certain rights regarding censorship but conservatives should be allowed equal protection under those same laws should they not? 

[ABX]

Agreed, but in looking at a larger picture, do entities like CBS, ABC, have the right to censor conservatives?  Does the IRS have the right to target conservatives?  These are very public entities.

IRS issue aside for a moment, regarding the networks:
They do all the time, even the so-called public airwave networks. They all have editorial boards and selectively choose what to air and not to air, and we've always complained they were left bias. It is impossible to give equal thought or platform to every opinion out there. Censorship is a necessary part of their model, they have to choose what news to cover in the time they have.

What Trump is suggesting would actually be worse than the IRS censorship and would empower more government control of all media and private sector information businesses. Also, the IRS censorship of tea parties is exactly the power Trump is implying the government should have- the government choosing through it's power what information and messages can be promoted by private groups.

Remember, any power you let the government have today, tomorrow when your opponents win a future election, they use that power against you.

[ABX]

The Constitution allows for certain rights regarding censorship but conservatives should be allowed equal protection under those same laws should they not?

Can you cite the Constitutional clause that allows government censorship of the private sector?

[libertybele]

IRS issue aside for a moment, regarding the networks:
They do all the time, even the so-called public airwave networks. They all have editorial boards and selectively choose what to air and not to air, and we've always complained they were left bias. It is impossible to give equal thought or platform to every opinion out there. Censorship is a necessary part of their model, they have to choose what news to cover in the time they have.

What Trump is suggesting would actually be worse than the IRS censorship and would empower more government control of all media and private sector information businesses. Also, the IRS censorship of tea parties is exactly the power Trump is implying the government should have- the government choosing through it's power what information and messages can be promoted by private groups.

Remember, any power you let the government have today, tomorrow when your opponents win a future election, they use that power against you.

What I am understanding is that Trump is implying that government should stop the ability from entities to censor particular group granting the rights and freedoms under the First Amendment to ALL, not just to the massive liberal giants and their followers.

[libertybele]

Can you cite the Constitutional clause that allows government censorship of the private sector?

I did NOT say anything about censoring the private sector; yet the government HAS censored the private sector. 

[ABX]

What I am understanding is that Trump is implying that government should stop the ability from entities to censor particular group granting the rights and freedoms under the First Amendment to ALL, not just to the massive liberal giants and their followers.

Read the first amendment again.  It doesn't grant rights, it restricts government interference in them. It only restricts the government. It doesn't restrict or grant anything to private sector nor Indi individuals. And private business deciding to only offer or do business with politically like minded individuals (taking it to the extreme of where it came from go) is protected under the same first amendment- freedom of association.

It is easy to be manipulated into outrage when you feel you are on the victim end, but flip it around.

Remember the 'fairness docterine'. Liberals were upset that talk radio had a huge market share and they were being censored out by these private business stations. Exactly the same situation, except with that there was less choice. Yet we stood up for the rights of those stations to carry what they choose.

Trump is calling for a 'fairness docterine' just like the liberals did, now it is just social media websites and search engines instead of radio stations.

[ABX]

I did NOT say anything about censoring the private sector; yet the government HAS censored the private sector.

You said : "the Constitution allows for certain rights of censorship" (btw, it doesn't) and the subject we are talking about here is the government censoring the private sector.

[kevindavis007]

Read the first amendment again.  It doesn't grant rights, it restricts government interference in them. It only restricts the government. It doesn't restrict or grant anything to private sector nor Indi individuals. And private business deciding to only offer or do business with politically like minded individuals (taking it to the extreme of where it came from go) is protected under the same first amendment- freedom of association.

It is easy to be manipulated into outrage when you feel you are on the victim end, but flip it around.

Remember the 'fairness docterine'. Liberals were upset that talk radio had a huge market share and they were being censored out by these private business stations. Exactly the same situation, except with that there was less choice. Yet we stood up for the rights of those stations to carry what they choose.

Trump is calling for a 'fairness docterine' just like the liberals did, now it is just social media websites and search engines instead of radio stations.

Here is what can be done. Find some developers, put up a site that will compete against Facebook. How hard is that?

[ABX]

Here is what can be done. Find some developers, put up a site that will compete against Facebook. How hard is that?

There are thousands if not millions of options, something for everyone.

Heck, someone already built the Tea Party Community social media site that almost mirrors Facebook, even stealing layout and colors. It looks like they did change up the color scheme recently.
https://teapartycommunity.com

There are options.  There is no monopoly, not even close.

[INVAR]

Read the first amendment again.  It doesn't grant rights, it restricts government interference in them. It only restricts the government. It doesn't restrict or grant anything to private sector nor Indi individuals. And private business deciding to only offer or do business with politically like minded individuals (taking it to the extreme of where it came from go) is protected under the same first amendment- freedom of association.

It is easy to be manipulated into outrage when you feel you are on the victim end, but flip it around.

Remember the 'fairness docterine'. Liberals were upset that talk radio had a huge market share and they were being censored out by these private business stations. Exactly the same situation, except with that there was less choice. Yet we stood up for the rights of those stations to carry what they choose.

Trump is calling for a 'fairness docterine' just like the liberals did, now it is just social media websites and search engines instead of radio stations.

Thank you for your masterful argument on this issue.  A new fairness doctrine they can get behind.  I find it disconcerting how so many who call themselves Conservative are so intent on using government to create 'fairness' -refusing to acknowledge any longer that government makes everything it touches WORSE for everyone.

[libertybele]

Read the first amendment again.  It doesn't grant rights, it restricts government interference in them. It only restricts the government. It doesn't restrict or grant anything to private sector nor Indi individuals. And private business deciding to only offer or do business with politically like minded individuals (taking it to the extreme of where it came from go) is protected under the same first amendment- freedom of association.

It is easy to be manipulated into outrage when you feel you are on the victim end, but flip it around.

Remember the 'fairness docterine'. Liberals were upset that talk radio had a huge market share and they were being censored out by these private business stations. Exactly the same situation, except with that there was less choice. Yet we stood up for the rights of those stations to carry what they choose.

Trump is calling for a 'fairness docterine' just like the liberals did, now it is just social media websites and search engines instead of radio stations.

Gottcha.   

[GrouchoTex]

Read the first amendment again.  It doesn't grant rights, it restricts government interference in them. It only restricts the government. It doesn't restrict or grant anything to private sector nor Indi individuals. And private business deciding to only offer or do business with politically like minded individuals (taking it to the extreme of where it came from go) is protected under the same first amendment- freedom of association.

It is easy to be manipulated into outrage when you feel you are on the victim end, but flip it around.

Remember the 'fairness docterine'. Liberals were upset that talk radio had a huge market share and they were being censored out by these private business stations. Exactly the same situation, except with that there was less choice. Yet we stood up for the rights of those stations to carry what they choose.

Trump is calling for a 'fairness docterine' just like the liberals did, now it is just social media websites and search engines instead of radio stations.

I remember Obama complaining that the Bill of Rights was a list of "negative" rights.
What was meant by that was that it narrowed what the Government can do, it limited Government's powers, as in "Congress shall make no law....".
Thank God for the Bill of Rights.

[Emjay]

We are a free country which means a private business should be free to put whatever product on their shelves they choose. If a Christian bookstore chooses not to put Buddhist books on their shelves, that's their right. If a BBQ restaurant chooses not to have a vegan options, that's their right. And if a search engine or social media site chooses to host, not host, promote, or demote content, that's also their right.

These businesses are not 'the public square'.

Those are private businesses and it is up to the consumer to decide if the service or product meets their needs, and  choose another service if it doesn't. If the business pissed off enough consumers, they will suffer and change.

But this is not any of the government's business.

No Vegan options?  That's harsh, man.

[Emjay]

Agreed, but in looking at a larger picture, do entities like CBS, ABC, have the right to censor conservatives?  Does the IRS have the right to target conservatives?  These are very public entities.

The press has a lot of freedoms granted under the Constitution.  Do their rights extend to printing false stories?  Not sure.  NBC and CNN have been proven to have done that just recently.

Apparently, the people are censoring those outlets by refusing to watch CNN at all.  Only family members are watching now.

It's a tricky thing.

[INVAR]

The press has a lot of freedoms granted under the Constitution. 

The Constitution grants no freedoms.

None at all.

No wonder you and the Trump faithful sound like Democrats a whole lot of the time.

[roamer_1]

The Constitution grants no freedoms.
None at all.

That's right... And what an intrinsic piece of knowledge that is when examining this American Republic.

[ABX]

The press has a lot of freedoms granted under the Constitution.  Do their rights extend to printing false stories? Not sure.  NBC and CNN have been proven to have done that just recently.

Apparently, the people are censoring those outlets by refusing to watch CNN at all.  Only family members are watching now.

It's a tricky thing.

Yes.   

And it is up to you as the consumer of news to educate yourself to determine what is true or not and then, take appropriate action in regards to if you continue to consume that source or find another (just like choosing a restaurant that serves the food best for you).

This isn't a new phenomenon. The founders who wrote these restrictions on the government even saw this. Even the grandfatherly sage of the founding of this country, Ben Franklin, was a major promoter and creator of 'fake news' as we would put it today. He wrote under several pseudonyms (Richard Saunders and Silence Dogwood were some of his more known ones) and often made up extremely outrageous, and fake stories about his personal adversaries, political opponents, colony governors, business owners, and even the king.

Ben Franklin actually created a fake version of the Boston Newspaper, The Independent Chronicle, and made up stories about the Native Americans, British, and even shops he didn't like. Much of it way, way beyond what we would tolerate today.

So the founders, when writing the First Amendment restricting the government from censoring the media, knew good and well what 'fake news' was and yet still said that it was not the government's place to censor it.

[truth_seeker]

Let me know when you are fully informed about regulated public utilities, ports, railroads, highways, water resources, history of oil industry breakup, history of financial market breakups.


Regulation is a dirty word for a political purist.


But we get clean water, thanks to some regulation.


The internet today, run by Big Tech Socials, is not a capitalist's free market.

A free, open, fair internet will be viewed as a basic right like clean water.


The entire world, and the entire economy, is not just as seen through he eyes of an MBA.

It is NOT a Trump issue, topic.

[Emjay]

Yes.   

And it is up to you as the consumer of news to educate yourself to determine what is true or not and then, take appropriate action in regards to if you continue to consume that source or find another (just like choosing a restaurant that serves the food best for you).

This isn't a new phenomenon. The founders who wrote these restrictions on the government even saw this. Even the grandfatherly sage of the founding of this country, Ben Franklin, was a major promoter and creator of 'fake news' as we would put it today. He wrote under several pseudonyms (Richard Saunders and Silence Dogwood were some of his more known ones) and often made up extremely outrageous, and fake stories about his personal adversaries, political opponents, colony governors, business owners, and even the king.

Ben Franklin actually created a fake version of the Boston Newspaper, The Independent Chronicle, and made up stories about the Native Americans, British, and even shops he didn't like. Much of it way, way beyond what we would tolerate today.

So the founders, when writing the First Amendment restricting the government from censoring the media, knew good and well what 'fake news' was and yet still said that it was not the government's place to censor it.

Very interesting stuff I did not know about Ben Franklin.  Wonder how he thought up Silence Dogwood? 

I guess if we survived Silence, we can survive anything.

Actually, we are in a much better position now than in the past.  People have ways to express themselves much easier than writing a letter to the editor or standing on the corner with a sign.

We have Twitter, Facebook, etc.  We have the Internet with sites from all points of view.

I don't think we should allow the government to interfere.  It can get ugly.