The future of the First Amendment is in danger! Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has rightly been receiving flak for his censoring of free speech on numerous occasions. Not only has his team censored free speech, this so-called world’s largest social network, Facebook, has already pushed its limits with data collection, political bias, social experimentation, and other downright shady relationships such as Facebook’s direct ties to the Council on Foreign Relations.
If you’ve ever made an account, Facebook’s cabal knows much more than your phone number, email address, and full name and it has no problem lending this information out to advertisers. Facebook can literally know everything about you: your location, your texts, your web search history, and hey why not even your personality? By knowing exactly where you stand on each issue, social media bias
has reached a peak with conservatives, Christians, patriots, and others witnessing extreme filtering of their information. Not surprising, Facebook’s tactic to shrink the influence of those they don’t agree with has been “covered up” with excuses.
In his recent hearing, Zuckerberg was asked by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, “Do you subjectively manipulate your algorithms to prioritize or censor speech?” His reply? Facebook does censor “types of content like terrorism.” Facebook, along with Twitter and YouTube
, all consider themselves to be “neutral” in providing a forum for public discussion. But if you really are “neutral” there is no room for censorship of opposing views.
These recent issues have caused the future of online censorship to be up for grabs. So who should decide what is acceptable online and what is not? Mr. Zuckerberg? The government?
Hate speech has been defined as “speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.” Hate speech itself is subjective and is nothing more than one's opinion. So is “hate speech” free speech? Is it protected by the First Amendment? Should Facebook censor posts that some deem offensive?
Just to be clear, freedom of speech does not end when someone is offended. “Hate speech,” no matter how offended someone may be with it, is still covered by the First Amendment. Hate itself is not an action, it is a feeling. Deeming words, posts, etc. as “hate speech” has way too many similarities with George Orwell’s 1984 “thought-crimes,” which are committed solely by having a thought about a crime.
By manipulating thoughts and demanding a “politically correct” society, one can control a nation, maybe even the world. To quote Orwell, “Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” And that is exactly the state we find ourselves in today. Would you want either Facebook or the government deciding what truth is for you? Do you want the government to decide whether or not your views are “hate speech?”
Are you ready to receive a misdemeanor for something someone else is offended by? Are you ready to be punished for having certain “feelings?”
Government’s unconstitutional solutions have never eliminated the problem that they set out to fix. Time and time again they have added to the problem and made it worse. Whether it be fixing healthcare, eliminating poverty, or stopping the war on drugs, it has always resulted in more government. And this case is exactly the same. Don’t be fooled by the government’s stated goal to preserve free speech because they are busy at work crafting ways for your free speech to be eliminated.
Want to be on the side that preserves the First Amendment for decades to come? Let the free market take care of it! Get off of Facebook, switch over to other alternatives
, but don’t call on government to solve your problems for you.
Image from pixabay
by composite, CC0 Creative Commons.