Stop Big Tech Censorship Now!
Op-Ed by Neenah Payne
Republicans and Democrats Find a Point of Agreement: Big Tech Is Too Powerful is a Wall Street Journal article that points out: “The unified anger over the reach of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google could signal future action by Congress.” Google, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have been increasingly blocking access to popular websites, videos, and other online content. They say they ban content based on the guidelines of the World Health Organization. The WHO is largely funded now by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates (who is not a doctor, elected, or appointed) said the world cannot go fully back to normal until almost all 7+ billion people get his rushed mRNA COVID vaccine.
When America’s Frontline Doctors held a press conference in front of the US Supreme Court on July 27, it was livestreamed by Breitbart and was seen by 17 million people – until the Tech Titans blocked it. America’s Frontline Doctors had come to tell America that there is no reason to fear COVID-19 because there is a $20 proven cure – HCQ. Dr. Stella Immanuel of Texas reported that she had used HCQ to cure over 350 COVID patients (many of whom were elderly with other illnesses) – and none died. America’s Frontline Doctors pointed out that the blocks on access to HCQ for COVID had cost the lives of over 70,000 Americans.
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko had used his HCQ protocol to cure 699 COVID patients by the end of March and none died. Seven nations adopted The Zelenko Protocol! Dr. Zelenko said that anyone wo blocks access to HCQ for COVID is guilty of genocide. Yet, America still blocks the use of HCQ for COVID-19. Why?
The Tech Titans blocked America’s Frontline Doctors from delivering their inspiring and healing message to the nation. Is that because if there is a proven cure for COVID-19, there is no need for an expensive vaccine? If so, Big Tech is not serving the interests of America, but of Big Pharma. Big Tech is violating Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press – our unalienable rights protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution – and must be stopped now.
Become a Natural Blaze Patron and Support Health Freedom HERE.
Senator Ted Cruz Takes on Big Tech
“Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) proposed three solutions to Silicon Valley’s censorship practices: regulation, antitrust, and policing big tech’s fraud during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Sen. Cruz held a hearing on big tech censorship and proposed three dynamic solutions to the Silicon Valley’s censorship practices, contending that the big tech companies have more power than Standard Oil or the old AT&T telephone monopoly.
Cruz three solutions include:
- Amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
- Antitrust measures to address big tech’s dominant status on the Internet.
- Addressing potential cases of fraud and deception.
“No one wants to see the federal government regulating what is allowed to be said, but there are at least three potential remedies that can be considered by Congress or the administration or both,” Cruz said.
The Texas Republican suggested that they could amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which regulates social media companies such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter as neutral platforms, although these companies have decided to make editorial and political decisions regarding content on their platforms. For instance, Facebook and its subsidiary Instagram decided to define the “truthiness” on the alleged dangers of vaccines and subsequently banned anti-vaccine content on their platforms.”
Highlights threats Big Tech poses to free speech and democracy on Fox News & Fox Business
“WASHINGTON, D.C. – After blasting Google’s politically motivated targeting of a conservative news outlet in a scathing letter to CEO Sundar Pichai, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the Subcommittee on The Constitution, appeared on Fox Business’ “Mornings with Maria,” and Fox News’ “The Daily Briefing” and “Fox & Friends” to discuss how Big Tech’s pattern of political bias poses a real threat to freedom of speech and democracy. Excerpts from his interviews are below.”
ON GOOGLE’S POLITICALLY MOTIVATED TARGETING OF CONSERVATIVES:
“[Google] went after The Federalist, which is a conservative media organization. They threatened to demonetize them, to cut off all ad revenue. And in the internet world that can be the difference between life or death. […] I sent a letter this week to the CEO of Google pointing out this was blatant censorship, and listing about a dozen left wing sites that all have comments. […] Google is not imposing the standards on them. Most critically, Maria, Google is not imposing the standards on itself. Google owns YouTube, the massive video platform, and if you take just a minute and look at the YouTube comments, you see all the time offensive, racist, [and] profane comments. And so I demanded production of a number of documents, a number of internal materials from Google as to why they were abusing their monopoly position […] and why they were abusing their monopoly position to try to harm a competitor of theirs, and impose standards on The Federalist that they weren’t imposing on their very own company YouTube?” (Sen. Cruz, “Mornings with Maria,” Fox Business, 6/18/2020)
“Google is a monopoly. It has more control, more power over information than any entity in the history of mankind. […] They’ve taken a new step. They went after a conservative journalistic outlet and ‘demonetized them’ or threatened to demonetize them – not even for anything they’d said, but for things that were allegedly in the comments section that various third parties had posted. So last night I sent a letter to the CEO of Google – I’m the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee – I sent a letter demanding an explanation as to why they are censoring free speech.” (Sen. Cruz, “The Daily Briefing,” Fox News, 6/17/2020)
ON BIG TECH’S THREAT TO FREE SPEECH:
“Big Tech gets a special immunity from liability that nobody else gets. And the reason they get it is that Congress believed they would be neutral public forums. In other words, they would allow people to post and it’d be third parties and it wasn’t fair to hold them liable for what other third parties said. […]
Big Tech, and in particular, Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, they made a conscious decision they aren’t going to be a neutral public forum anymore. Instead they will censor, shadow ban, [and] silence the voices they disagree with. They’re silencing conservatives and [amplifying] the voices they agree with. And if they do that, there’s no reason on Earth that Congress should give them a special immunity from liability that nobody else gets.” (Sen. Cruz, “Fox & Friends,” Fox News, 6/18/2020)
ON BIG TECH’S THREAT TO OUR DEMOCRACY & ELECTIONS:
“Big Tech is angry that Donald Trump got elected, and they are angry at themselves for letting him get elected. I believe Big Tech has resolved they won’t let it happen again. They are going to do everything they can to try to silence any speech that they don’t like, and they are brazen about. They discovered that they can do it without major consequences at least to date. (Sen. Cruz, “Mornings with Maria,” Fox Business, 6/18/2020)
“I have chaired a whole series of hearings looking at Big Tech censorship. I think this is the single biggest threat to our democracy. In one hearing, we heard testimony from an academic named Robert Epstein who has done the only empirical study of Google searches. He found in the last election, in 2016, that Google’s manipulation and misleading searches shifted upwards of 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton.
[…] He also testified in 2020 [that] if they do it again and lean in hard, they could move upwards of 15 million votes. This is a profound threat. […] We need all of the resources of the administration, focused on stopping this lawless conduct and protecting free speech and our elections, because if we don’t, Silicon Valley billionaires control and decide our elections.” (Sen. Cruz, “Mornings with Maria,” Fox Business, 6/18/2020)
Cruz’s letter, obtained by Fox News, focuses on The Federalist and says Google’s efforts to demonetize the publication raise ‘serious concerns.’ […] ‘Destroying’ The Federalist’s ‘ability to use advertising to reach willing readers should be wholly beyond the pale,’ Cruz said. […] Cruz has been vocal in his criticism of big tech censorship in recent weeks since Twitter decided to label two of the president’s tweets, sparking a new debate about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and its role in protecting social media platforms that edit user content.
Washington Examiner: Ted Cruz demands answers from Google over ‘effort to censor’ the Federalist
Sen. Ted Cruz sent a letter to the CEO of Google accusing the company of ‘abusing its monopoly power in an effort to censor political speech with which it disagrees’ and demanding answers on communications the tech giant had with third parties concerning a conservative outlet. […] Cruz sent his letter to Google CEO Sundar Pichai following the report, saying the incident appears to be part of a trend within a ‘bigger problem’ concerning the censorship of free speech in Silicon Valley.
Cruz plans to send Google CEO Sundar Pichai a letter on Wednesday and called its alleged action part of a bigger problem involving the culture of free speech being attack in the U.S, adding that the company was helping to lead that charge. Cruz wrote that Americans at one time understood the best response to free speech, ‘was more free speech.’ He claimed that some Americans, with the assistance of powerful companies, are now pressing to silence and punish people who express their views that don’t ‘align with the prevailing and ever-shifting progressive orthodoxy.’ […] He added: “As evidence by its actions yesterday, Google seems more than happy to play this censorship role by trying to break the financial back of a media publication it disagrees with.”
In his letter, Cruz points out the hypocrisy and irony presented by Google in this matter. ‘Google’s decision to target The Federalist is transparently politically motivated,’ noted Sen. Cruz. ‘Numerous ‘progressive’ media outlets allow comments, including, Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, Wonkette, Slate, Jezebel, The Root, Salon, The Intercept, The Young Turks, and many others.’ He also noted that “on any given day, there are thousands of profane, racist, and indefensible comments posted on YouTube, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) unloaded on Google in a letter late Tuesday over a debacle that played out on social media in which NBC News ran a hit piece on the conservative publication The Federalist in an apparent attempt to get them demonetized from Google – a move that would damage their business. […] In the letter, Cruz highlighted the ‘serious concerns’ that Google’s alleged actions raised with respect to an apparent attempt to ‘censor political speech with which it disagrees.’
Washington Times: Sen. Ted Cruz warns Google over attack on conservative media
The Texas Republican accused the internet giant of hypocrisy in targeting The Federalist, the conservative site, for offensive comments posted on its stories, even as Google’s own platform, YouTube, has similarly offensive comments. Mr. Cruz said Google has long insisted it is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which allows internet companies to claim they are pass-throughs and not responsible for the content users post online. But Mr. Cruz wondered why Google wasn’t treating The Federalist the same way. ‘It is also deeply ironic that Google is financially punishing a website for speech that appears on its platform,’ the senator wrote in the letter.
WATCH: Sen. Cruz: It Is Terrifying That a Handful of Silicon Valley Billionaires Have the Ability to Censor, Deceive, and Manipulate Votes Sen. Cruz is leading the fight to hold Big Tech accountable to the American people.
Amazon Bans Doctors’ Best-Selling Book!
Amazon sells several books by Dr. Thomas Cowan as well as many of his nutritional supplements. It also sells several books by Dr. Sally Fallon. However, Amazon just banned their new book Contagion Myth: Why Viruses (including “Coronavirus”) Are Not the Cause of Disease which is a #1 Best Seller at Barnes & Noble! Amazon Banned My Book! is an informative discussion with Dr. Cowan and Dr. Fallon about the shocking causes of COVID they document in their ground-breaking book! They explain that Amazon may now sell the book and Barnes and Noble is saying the book is “out of stock”. So it’s all up in the air!
Banning books in this era is equivalent to book burning in Nazi Germany. What are the Tech Titans so afraid of Americans knowing? Knowledge is power. In denying Americans access to information, Big Tech is undermining the power of the nation. That makes them anti-American.
In “Whatever Happened to Rigorous, Open, Scientific Discourse?” Dr. Cowan wrote subscribers:
The central premise of “The Contagion Myth” is that, contrary to what we have been led to believe, no actual scientific evidence exists that any novel coronavirus exists. Science lays out clear, well-accepted and defined rules for how we determine that a new virus exists. Researchers take a sample from a sick person, macerate, filter and centrifuge it until a pure virus is obtained. This virus is then examined under the electron microscope.
Shockingly, on page 39 of the CDC’s July 2020 bulletin, the CDC acknowledges no published “isolates” of the coronavirus are known. Equally shockingly, the authors of the six most important papers on the isolation and characterization of this new virus all publicly and in writing admit that they neither purified nor isolated this virus. At this point, there is simply no evidence this virus exists, let alone causes any disease.
We, of course, could be incorrect in our documentation of these statements as well as many other pieces of historical evidence we lay out, in which case in a free, open and post-Enlightenment society, other researchers would come forth with clear evidence that we are in error.
I would welcome such a discourse. I would love to review whatever studies they would present. Yet, instead, we are met with censorship and scorn. This response is an ominous development in the life of humanity, one we must oppose.
Belgian MDs Reject COVID “Health” Policies!
Hundreds of Belgian Docs Push Back discusses an open letter with nearly 13,000 signatories, including doctors and medically-trained professionals in Belgium, which is gaining major traction. Using science-based data showing the lockdown was unjustified, the letter refutes attempts to reapply the same measures.
Senator Rand Paul Grills Fauci on COVID “Health” Policies!
Fauci Gets Grilled shows that in recent Senate hearings, Dr. Anthony Fauci was questioned about the COVID “health” policies by Senator Rand Paul (an MD).
Dangers of COVID-19 Vaccine Revealed!
The Astrazeneca Saga Continues reveals problems emerging in the COVID-19 vaccine tests.
Flu Shot For Dummies reports on the many problems with the seasonal flu shot. The video says:
As mainstream media pushes “Twin-demic” panic, claiming the only answer is the flu shot, Dr. Jim Meehan, MD, sits down with Del to thoroughly look at science behind the flu shot’s effectiveness and safety, providing everything you need to know to make an informed decision on whether to inject yourself and your kids this fall.
These videos are the kind of vital information the corporate media often fails to report and is often suppressed by the Tech Giants. That lack of knowledge can put millions of Americans in harm’s way. For example, Del Bigtree of The Highwire who provided these reports was forced off YouTube recently.
We Need To Hear Other Side Of COVID-19 Story!
The corporate media and Tech Giants have allowed only one side of the COVID-19 story to be told. So, many Americans have been terrified by what they believe is a “deadly pandemic”. They believe that they must obey all the COVID-19 “health” policies or risk death or killing others.
However, there is another important side of the story that is being told only on the alternative media in sites like Natural Blaze, Activist Post and The Highwire. People need this information to make informed decisions. The free film Plandemic: Indoctornation is an easy way to get the other side of the story.
Final Words on Mask and Lockdown – Part One is an article by Dr. Mark Sircus who provides subscribers with insight into the real agenda of the COVID “health” policies. He warns:
There is no objective scientific research to back the harsh reactions of international health officials to COVID-19. But like dump cows, we are being herded into the continuing drama of the pandemic.
The latest intentional scare: Warnings that the U.S. could be heading for a catastrophic health crisis have become urgent. Most pandemic models predict a surge starting in the fall and worsening into the winter that could rival or even surpass the worst days of the spring. …
Why did they lockdown, and continue to lockdown in some areas, when the pandemic ended up being nothing more than a deadly flu season? They are continuing their scare tactics with reports of almost a million deaths but how they counted those deaths is highly suspect…. Over the course of six months, the United States, as well as the entire world, has succeeded in bringing itself to its knees, economically, socially, and politically for no real medical reason at all….
After seven months of the pandemic, not only a viral one but a political, financial, economic, and personal one, it is time to take stock of where we are and where we are going. We have many intelligent people and doctors who have weighed in on different aspects of the pandemic; it is only a matter of listening to what they say to come to the truth about what health officials are doing that has brought humanity to its knees.…
At this point in history, many of our lives might depend on our ability to listen. It is a pity that we did not come to a consensus before we let health officials instigate the takedown of human activity. Did we collectively lose our minds, or are we that submissive or so conditioned by propaganda that we cannot see the forest from the trees.
Help Stop Big Tech Censorship On the Internet!
The John Birch site points out:
Internet censorship by Big Tech companies threatens free speech, and it is growing increasingly common and politically-motivated. Congress and the President must put an end to this by repealing or amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and rejecting any “free” trade agreement that enables Big Tech censorship. They must enact any of the following bills: S. 4534, S. 1914, S. 3983, and H.R. 4027.
Big Tech censorship on the internet is threatening free speech and internet freedom, and Congress and the President must act to put an end to this.
Big Tech censorship has grown increasingly blatant and politically-motivated, particularly against conservatives. Among hundreds of examples, social media platforms have censored the attorney defending a 17-year-old prosecuted for exercising his Second Amendment rights, any coronavirus information contradicting the corrupt globalist WHO’s narratives including the scientifically-grounded theory that the virus was manmade, and even President Donald Trump for pointing out the voter fraud risk from unsolicited mail-in ballots. Additionally, Big Tech has the power to singlehandedly reshape society and is working to influence the upcoming presidential election by censoring conservatives. Already, Big Tech has suppressed conservative media on their platforms, including The New American.
Why is Big Tech getting away with this? An important reason is Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA). This provision gives website providers legal immunity for any obscene content posted by their users. It does so by treating these providers as “neutral public forums” as opposed to a “publisher or speaker.”
At least since the 1959 Smith v. California Supreme Court decision, book stores, libraries, and similar providers were not liable for obscene content they distributed since they were not considered publishers. Upon the growth of the internet, this rule was initially implemented until 1995 when a federal judge ruled that the website Prodigy was liable for its content since it had a policy of removing obscene content, thus acting as a publisher. In response, Congress passed the CDA, allowing platforms to moderate content they considered “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”
Big Tech companies have used Section 230 to justify political and religious censorship of those expressing conservative viewpoints. This stems from both problems in the law’s text and Big Tech companies not applying it fairly. For example, as quoted above, subsection c-2 of Section 230 allows Big Tech companies to remove “otherwise objectionable” content. While federal courts have ruled the wording does not justify political censorship, it is vague enough that Big Tech companies have abused it anyhow.
Additionally, Section 230 treats Big Tech companies as public forums in exchange for immunity. However, these companies instead act as publishers when they censor content for political reasons, thus making their actions inconsistent with the law. Big Tech itself has realized this inconsistency. For example, despite publicly claiming to be platforms, both Facebook and Google have admitted in court that they are actually publishers.
Growing momentum exists to clarify, amend, or repeal Section 230, both in Congress and the executive branch. Several bills have been introduced in the 116th Congress to do just that. For example, S. 4534, or the Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, sponsored by Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), would change Section 230’s wording to clarify it and prevent Big Tech companies from using it to enable political censorship.
Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has introduced several bills to combat Big Tech censorship. For example, S. 1914, or the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, would audit Big Tech companies and remove Section 230 protections if the audits found bias in their algorithms or content moderation. Additionally, Hawley’s S. 3983, or Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, would remove Big Tech’s Section 230 protections unless they change their terms of service to rule out political censorship.
In the House of Representatives, Representative Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and several other members introduced H.R. 4027, or the Stop the Censorship Act, which would only allow Big Tech to remove content that is unlawful, such as promoting violence or terrorism. Additionally, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), while not proposing a bill, has offered three specific solutions to combat Big Tech censorship.
Importantly, these proposals do not mandate government-compelled speech upon Big Tech companies. They simply withdraw favors previously granted by the federal government if those companies continue engaging in political censorship.
The executive branch, led by President Donald Trump, an opponent of Big Tech censorship, is also taking action to clarify Section 230. On May 28, 2020, the president signed an executive order to combat Big Tech censorship; it included a provision to revise Section 230’s interpretation to clarify that only neutral platforms would receive legal immunity as was intended. Both the Commerce and Justice Departments began implementing the order. On September 23, 2020, the DOJ submitted a legislative proposal to Congress that, if passed, would also accomplish this in addition to removing immunity if Big Tech knowingly fails to remove “content that violates federal criminal law.”
The New American’s Alex Newman noted of President Trump’s order:
“It is past time for the federal government to quit funding, boosting, and protecting rogue economic actors that are hostile to America’s most important and fundamental principles, including privacy and freedom of speech. President Trump’s order is a step in the right direction. However, over the long term, once the feds quit rigging the marketplace in favor of the Big Tech giants, it will be crucial that the free market provide alternatives to the anti-American giants of Silicon Valley. The sooner that happens, the better.”
President Trump also pulled the renomination of Mike O’Reilly as Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioner after he publicly announced his opposition to revising Section 230. Big Tech lobbyists have “express[ed] alarm” at the president’s replacement nominee, Nathan Simington, since Simington “isn’t one of them.” President Trump has continued pushing to end internet censorship by Big Tech.
These actions – particularly the bills proposed in Congress – face an uphill battle, not only because of Big Tech opposition, but also from international trade agreements that restrict U.S. sovereignty and Congress’s ability to act.
For example, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) includes a provision similar to Section 230, except that it is broader and vaguer, giving Big Tech even more leeway in censoring conservatives. A 2019 trade agreement between the U.S. and Japan had a similar provision. This is not new: special interests have long taken advantage of sovereignty-inhibiting international agreements to get their way on policy when national legislatures refuse to act. While the USMCA might not prevent every Section 230 proposal, it does complicate reform efforts in addition to threatening national sovereignty.
Our God-given liberties are too important to relinquish, whether to government or Big Tech. We must continue the fight to preserve them. Big Tech censorship poses a serious threat to those liberties, particularly the inalienable freedoms of speech and expression.
Urge Congress to put an end to this by reforming or repealing Section 230. Urge them to pass any of the following bills:
- S. 4534, the Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act
- S. 1914, the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act
- S. 3983, the Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act
- H.R. 4027, the Stop the Censorship Act. Urge the President to continue the push to counter Big Tech censorship.
Additionally, urge both Congress and the President to reject all “trade agreements” and other treaties that threaten national sovereignty, including the USMCA. Above all, urge them all to abide by the Constitution when making policy on Big Tech, as with every other policy matter.
Sign the JBS petition at: https://jbs.org/alert/end-big-tech-censorship-on-the-internet/