Connect with us

Media

Petition demanding free speech on social media sites that are protected as platforms

Published

on

Petition demanding free speech on social media sites that are protected as platforms

“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” – (47 U.S.C. § 230)

In one sentence, we can see how content platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube aren’t held liable for content their users post on the site. This important protection is intended to secure free speech for users and protect platforms supporting their users. In other words, this is intended to encourage free speech. More importantly, it’s supposed to encourage freedom of thought.

But those of us who have watched the systematic purging, censoring, and silencing of conservative and Christian voices on these platforms are well aware of the reality. There is no fairness. They do not encourage free speech. They are far from being the havens for freedom of thought that they promised they’d be when users flocked to their services over the last decade and a half.

It was a trap. Now, the trap has been sprung.

The petition below and those who sign it demand that these and similar sites stop their anti-conservative and anti-Christian practices. If they want to prevent harassment, then do so consistently. All too often, conservatives like James Woods are targeted for paraphrasing Ralph Waldo Emerson while people like Keith Olbermann are given a free pass even when he calls on his followers to make an individual hunter’s life “a living hell.”

Either embrace free speech (preferred) or wield your scalpel of censorship equally (acceptable) across the political and religious spectrum. If you’re going to use your power with bias, then renounce your protected platform status.

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Media

Journalistic Integrity

Published

on

FRAMING THE DISCUSSION

How often have you read words to the effect that a highly placed source close to the investigation revealed xyz today under condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case… Blah… Blah… Blah…. ?

Is your first thought that just really must be something juicy that I can barely wait to read? Or do you stop and wonder how untrustworthy is the person who was supposed to protect information who instead divulged it?

Do you also think about how unscrupulous the person was who received the information and published it without concern for the consequences? The more fundamental question is do you believe that the whole world has a right to know everything a government agency is doing?

Is there ever a need to protect anything from public disclosure? The government sometimes has to classify information to protect sources whose lives would be in danger and to avoid revealing methods by which the data was collected.

Whatever the American public knows, our enemies around the world also know. That is simply a fact of life.

Do you feel sympathetic for Bradley Manning revealing sensitive U.S. military information? Do you admire Julian Assange for making it known? Do you think Edward Snowden is a traitor or a hero or somewhere in between?

Have you delved into all the nitty-gritty details of the incident in San Francisco? Is there a legitimate reason a law enforcement agency would want to stop a leak within their Department? That is a totally separate issue from how they go about trying to plug the leak.

Does a journalist have a right to publish anything he or she becomes privy to? Without understanding the entire case, how would the writer estimate the implications of such disclosure?

Does it even matter or is just getting a scoop and public acclaim an uncontested ultimate goal which overrules all other considerations? War correspondents often have to agree not to disclose locations and other sensitive info.

I still remember when Geraldo Rivera went on Fox News live shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and drew marks in the dirt showing where they were and how they got there. He was quite appropriately disinvited from accompanying the troops.

It all comes down to whether one considers his or her own career as tantamount to the national well-being.

SELECTIVE COVERAGE

The next point of contention comes into play when a journalist is convinced that their role is that of apologist for a particular ideology. The flipside of the disclosure of secret information is the suppression of matters which the public has every right to know.

All the major influential news media in Hawaii are controlled by the Democrat Party. Oh, I doubt there is any actual deed of ownership. Not even a signed agreement. Just a tacit understanding that perpetuating the status quo is the media’s proper role.

Therefore any conservative upstart candidate does not deserve to be heard and his or her message should be buried. The most effective way to do that is simply to ignore and refuse to cover the campaign.

It’s really hard to say whether a liberal society leads to a liberal media or whether a liberal media leads to a liberal society. One thing for sure is that they go hand-in-hand.

During the last 25 years or so in this internet age, print media has lost its dominance in influencing public opinion. 24×7 cable news coverage was a big deal 35 years ago. Now websites and social media provide real-time access to both breaking news and analysis.

PUTTING THINGS INTO PERSPECTIVE

There is now a real opportunity for conservatives to get our message to the people. Most of our fellow travelers in this world are followers and lurkers. They are the lemmings who plunge over the cliff if somebody charismatic leads them there. So, we need to recruit qualified men and women to provide objective alternatives without trying to lead anybody anywhere.

Many misuse their rhetorical talents for self-aggrandizement and personal enrichment. But journalists must recognize their responsibility to the public trust. It is an awesome privilege to be one of those who document an epoch in human history.

We know what has gone before us in the world only through the eyes of those who wrote about it either contemporarily or in retrospect. If this world is still here a hundred years from now, and there is some doubt about that, what will people know about the year 2019? None of us is going to be around in 2119 to reminisce about it.

THE STAKES ARE HIGH

We could go back 160 years to the administration of President James Buchanan in 1859 and read about events that led up to the War Between the States. Now we mostly hear it called the Civil War, but it used to be more commonly understood as what it really was. It wasn’t civil. It was a conflict that tore this country apart.

Lest we go that route again, we all need to start thinking of ourselves collectively. Rather than fanning the flames of divisiveness, journalists would be commended to emphasize those common beliefs and objectives that draw us together as a nation.

It really is not complex. It is the simplest thing in the world. Have integrity. Do what is right. Write the truth.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

What does San Francisco Mayor London Breed have to hide about Jeff Adachi’s death?

Published

on

What does San Francisco Mayor London Breed have to hide about

San Francisco politicians would be in an absolute uproar if the Trump administration ordered the suspension of an unambiguous liberty for the sake of expediency. They would declare a Constitutional crisis was underway and would demand the rights of their citizens be upheld while those who violated them should be held accountable. But when the rights of a citizen are trampled on to benefit their corrupt politicians, they stand by the trampling and pretend like nothing foul is afoot.

Such is the story of journalist Bryan Carmody. His 1st Amendment rights were disregarded so blatantly and so frivolously that it’s obvious there’s a major cover up underway that is protecting very powerful people in the progressive mecca of San Francisco. Following Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s death, a leaked police report was released by Carmody, prompting the San Francisco Police to illegally attempt to force him to reveal his source. He is protected by the Freedom of the Press from divulging his source, but strong-arm techniques reminiscent of the actions of third-world dictators doesn’t seem to be making a dent in the official stories from San Francisco politicians, most notably Mayor London Breed.

San Francisco’s mayor shows the country what a real attack on the free press looks like

Carmody claims he was restrained in handcuffs for nearly six hours as the authorities ransacked his home, seizing “laptops, phones and hard drives — including all the images and documents he had archived from his 29-year career as a reporter and cameraman,” the report adds.

Law enforcement officials have neither denied nor contradicted the freelancer’s version of events. The San Francisco Police Department has not yet returned Carmody’s equipment. The raid, which was approved by two trial court judges, also included agents from the FBI.

And all because Carmody refused to give up a confidential source, as is his right. The mayor sees it differently, though, and she is digging in.

The Mayor took the unconstitutional route from the start and hasn’t looked back.

“San Francisco Police Department is in the process of conducting an investigation into how confidential information was released within the Department. As part of this investigation, the Department went through the appropriate legal process to request a search warrant, which was approved by two judges,” her office said in a statement last week.

Even now, as the pressure mounts from news outlets across the country for the far-left political machine of San Francisco to denounce the attack on the press, one that is so much more direct and heinous than anything President Trump has done, they continue to focus on the legality of the search warrants (even though they clearly were not legal by any stretch of the imagination) and the imperative of finding out who leaked the memos, something that no average San Francisco resident could ever actually care about if they’re being honest.

Instead of defending the Constitution and the rights of their citizens, they’re redirecting.

Their unabashed willingness to continue forward despite all the bad press they’re getting can easily lead someone to one conclusion: There’s something really bad surrounding Adechi’s death that has San Francisco Democrats terrified. There’s a cover up happening right before our eyes, one that has politicians, police, and judges involved and unwavering in their willingness to discard the 1st Amendment altogether.

Whatever has London Breed and her cronies spooked about Adechi’s death, it has to be huge. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be pressing so adamantly against the Constitution of the United States in the broad daylight of public condemnation.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Media

Trump hits Fox News, Chris Wallace for Pete Buttigieg town hall

Published

on

Trump hits Fox News in general and Chris Wallace in particular for having Democrats on

President Trump has always been a supporter of Fox News. Some have noted how many of his talking points came from the news network; during the day he quotes Fox & Friends, while in the evening he quotes Sean Hannity and others. But there’s one show host he doesn’t care for and one activity he’s lashed out against at the network.

He doesn’t like Chris Wallace and he isn’t happy when they have Democratic presidential candidates on.

He spoke out last month when the network had Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on for a a town hall with Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. Though the hosts were critical of Sanders and asked him tough questions, the event was considered a win by many for Sanders as he deflected some issues and turned others in his favor. This peeved the President, but not as much as Wallace did this morning.

The son of famed newsman Mike Wallace had South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg on for a town hall Sunday and proceeded to not only throw him softballs for questions, but at times praise the Democratic candidate. This didn’t sit well with the President.

Opinion

I understand the premise of the news is that it’s supposed to be unbiased. But I also recognize the reality that all news is biased. The President has very few allies in the media and Fox News is the biggest, so when they seem to be helping the opposition, it’s bound to tweak the President.

In a perfect world, the major news networks would be truly fair and balanced. This isn’t a perfect world and the cards are stacked against conservatives. Just as the education system leans left, so too do most mainstream media news outlets.

Chris Wallace sticks out at Fox News as one of the few outspoken detractors of President Trump. It puts them in a pickle because they don’t want to get rid of the popular show host over his political views, but their core audience is comprised almost entirely of Trump supporters. It doesn’t behoove them to have someone so outspoken, especially when the opposition is using his shows a platform to take down the President.

Quote

“Gee, he never speaks well of me – I like Mike Wallace better…and Alfred E. Newman will never be President!” – President Trump

Final Thoughts

In a media atmosphere in which news outlets are picking sides, the President only has one major outlet on his. The days of news outlets simply reporting the news may be behind us. This is a side effect of the polarization in America.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending