Greg Price
@greg_price11
·
Follow
JD Vance went to the Munich Security Conference and roasted the entire continent of Europe for being petty tyrants and criminalizing freedom of speech, including a British man arrested for praying at an abortion clinic.

2:02 PM · Feb 14, 2025

It's a concerning thing that you have those kinds of actions, and he was right to call them out. If we are supposed to be standing with them because of "common values," those aren't common values and they need to understand that. //

JD Vance
@JDVance
·
Follow
This is a crazy exchange.

Does the media really think the holocaust was caused by free speech?
Michael Brendan Dougherty
@michaelbd
This is the first time I’ve heard the theory that the Holocaust wasn’t conducted with gas chambers but with free speech zones.
Embedded video
8:14 PM · Feb 16, 2025 //

The Nazis had no free speech. They locked up and killed many people who bravely spoke out against their evil actions. How does someone with that kind of a position in media not fully understand that? //

JD Vance
@JDVance
·
Follow
Insulting someone is not a crime, and criminalizing speech is going to put real strain on European-US relationships.

This is Orwellian, and everyone in Europe and the US must reject this lunacy.
End Wokeness
@EndWokeness
CBS: "Is posting an insult a crime?"
German prosectors: "Yes"
CBS: "Is it a crime to repost a lie?"
German prosecutors: "Yes"
Embedded video
12:40 PM · Feb 17, 2025

Thierry Breton @ThierryBreton
·
Welcome to Europe VP @JDVance.

With all due respect, in 🇪🇺, freedom of speech is a core value of our democracy — it is non-negotiable. Never was and never will be.

Proof? Even fake news are allowed (sadly, sometimes echoed by top US officials) :

EU/DSA has never canceled… Show more

6:02 PM · Feb 14, 2025. //

Visegrád 24 @visegrad24
·
Former European Commissioner Thierry Breton says the EU has mechanisms to nullify a potential election victory of the AfD:

”We did it in Romania and we will obviously do it in Germany if necessary”

11:32 PM · Jan 10, 2025

"In other words, as the President asserts, ‘[t]he Russia Collusion Hoax was dead, at least until Defendants [as members of the Pulitzer Prize board] attempted to resurrect it’ by conspiring to publish a defamatory statement falsely implying that the President colluded with the Russians."

In their motion to dismiss, the Board had asserted that their statement defending the awards was purely opinion and not actionable. Artau, however, points out that they injected claims of fact.

"The board members vouched for the truth of reporting that had been debunked by all credible sources charged with investigating the false claim that the President colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election," he wrote.

Artau states that President Trump met the burden of establishing jurisdiction for the trial court and can therefore "proceed with his asserted claims that the non-resident defendants acted with actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth." //

Trump's lawsuit countered that assertion, noting explicitly how the Washington Post had “retracted statements from several articles from 2017 relating to the Steele Dossier and other alleged connections between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

Indeed, the Post quietly edited two major articles that relied on the discredited Steele dossier and added editor’s notes to at least 14 other reports.

Although much of the buzz around ‘Wicked’ has focused on ‘queering,’ it is the concepts of propaganda and tyranny that drive the film. //

Not everything is hunky-dory in Oz. Here, animals are persecuted for their differences and put in cages to prevent them from learning to speak. Elphaba has a strong sense of justice to speak for the voiceless and decides to visit the one and only Wizard of Oz to fix the problem.

To her dismay, the Wizard (played brilliantly by Jeff Goldblum) is a fraud. Elphaba is invited to his castle to create flying monkeys that will be perfect “spies in the sky.” Scheming together with Morrible, the Wizard tells Elphaba that dissent will not be tolerated.

“When I first got here,” says the Wizard, “there was discord. There was discontent. And back where I come from, everybody knows that the best way to bring folks together is to give them a real good enemy.”

“We’re doing this to keep people safe,” Morrible says, in turn. We’ve heard that one before. Many things have been done “for the security of the state,” and they are never good.

Although slightly bumbling (in a very Jeff Goldblum way), the Wizard is nevertheless manipulative. Goldblum’s Wizard oscillates between a P.T. Barnum figure and a dictator with Morrible at his side. It is Morrible who is responsible for spreading lies about Elphaba. It is Morrible who names her the Wicked Witch and says she must be destroyed. Morrible effectively begins the propaganda campaign against Elphaba, exploiting her physical differences with the intent of crushing her free will.

The people of Oz accept it because they’ve already been living in a society that has kept them artificially happy, as long as they don’t ask questions. They are living in an illusion, in Plato’s cave, and the shadows are their reality. They are weak and would rather blame an external factor for their problems rather than take responsibility for their actions (or lack thereof). In other words, they have made themselves into slaves and require a dictator to exist.

Propaganda is a powerful tool, and we have seen this phenomenon throughout many totalitarian systems, even in soft, shape-shifting totalitarian impulses in the United States. In some ways, the ideological lie becomes worse in nations that fundamentally and foundationally resist tyranny. But it is precisely this contrast between freedom and small acts of tyranny that are insidious. People can be “asleep” through many different means, but it always includes a refusal to see the truth because then one must act. In “Wicked,” Glinda opts for an existential blindfold. The alleged goodness she embodies is nothing more than an affectation.

“Wicked” is not an excellent film. At times, it meanders and is sensory overload by virtue of being a musical. But in the final moments of the film, the larger idea is revealed: What is reality? Do we possess free will to choose truth over a lie?

In the final song, “Defying Gravity,” Elphaba sings that if she’s “flying solo,” then “at least, [she’s] flying free.” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has identified “the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation” as “a personal nonparticipation in lies!” Elphaba could have chosen to be part of the Wizard’s machine, but that means she would be living by lies.

Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan that Facebook pushed back on the Biden regime’s censorship demands. The Facebook Files say otherwise. //

Zuckerberg purported in his JRE [Joe Rogan Experience] appearance that Facebook resisted Biden administration bids like these. Instead, the Big Tech company’s censors fulfilled Flaherty’s dreams that it would “play ball” by “demoting” posts casting doubts on the Covid-19 jab. Covid content that couldn’t be easily or justifiably removed under Facebook’s terms and conditions would be “contained” and sent to the company’s third-party “fact-checkers” for further false impugnment.

Zuckerberg wants the millions of people who tuned into his conversation with Rogan to believe that Facebook was a heroic middle-man who told off the government when it tried to throttle dissenters. In reality, Facebook was a willing accomplice in the Democrat-fueled war on free speech. No amount of Zuckerberg’s revisionist retelling can erase the evidence that Facebook eagerly participated in the Biden administration’s scheme to silence its political enemies, dissenters, and publications like The Federalist.

Following Mark Zuckerberg’s putative mea culpa for having made Meta complicit in the largest censorship regime in American history, and his vow to restore free expression on his platforms, the CEO made perhaps his most consequential statement of all in an interview with Joe Rogan.

There, after describing the pressure campaign the Biden administration waged against his company to suppress disfavored speech, primarily regarding Covid-19, Zuckerberg told Rogan: “I don’t think that the pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal.”

The Meta CEO’s silence as this very issue was being litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court was as deafening then as it is maddening now. But in making this assertion, he has inadvertently highlighted one of the Roberts Court’s gravest derelictions of duty — one that emphasizes the necessity of vigorous executive and legislative actions in defense of our rights, actions like those promised by the Trump administration and some in Congress.

The dereliction of duty came in the Supreme Court’s punting of the case of Murthy v. Missouri, previously known as Missouri v. Biden.

Plaintiffs in the case obtained and marshaled voluminous evidence demonstrating that senior Biden White House officials and federal agencies coerced, cajoled, and colluded directly and indirectly with social media companies to purge disfavored news and views en masse on matters ranging from the Hunter Biden laptop story to election integrity and Covid-19. The defendants did so on ostensible grounds of combatting dangerous “mis-, dis-, and mal-information.” In deputizing non-governmental actors as its speech police, the plaintiffs argued, the feds engaged in a conspiracy to violate the First Amendment by proxy.

The case, alongside congressional investigations and reportage including the “Twitter Files,” helped expose the size, scope, and nature of the censorship-industrial complex. //

The defendants appealed. But Judge Doughty’s counterparts on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld his ruling.

So the feds took their argument to the Supreme Court. There, shockingly, as I observed while attending oral arguments, far too many of the justices showed they held a perversely narrow view of the First Amendment, and they gave substantial deference to the feds that had so imperiled it. Some also seemed remarkably ignorant of the expansive factual record supporting the plaintiffs’ claims.

Last summer, the high court dismissed the plaintiffs’ concerns and Americans’ free speech rights on a technicality. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supremes held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive relief, refusing to rule on the merits of the case.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, rebuked the court for straining to create “new” and “heightened” standards to find that the plaintiffs lacked standing and warned that the court’s refusal to rule on the merits of the case could result in dire consequences.

“[W]e are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents,” Alito asserted. “The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.”

The dissent concluded that what transpired in Murthy “was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so.”

By not ruling that the censorship-industrial complex’s acts were unconstitutional — by avoiding the question entirely — the Supremes signaled that it was open season on free speech in America. //

The courts simply cannot be seen as a reliable backstop for protecting our First Amendment rights against the censorship-industrial complex.

What’s more, if Republicans allow the fed-led censorship regime to persist, there will be no deterrent to Democrat efforts to create analogous regimes going forward, targeting rights beyond those enshrined in the First Amendment.

Zuckerberg’s admission of a pressure campaign lays bare the truth: the government colluded with Big Tech to violate Americans’ First Amendment right and the Supreme Court squandered an opportunity to right a wrong.

The Meta CEO tried to paint the censorship as well-intentioned, claiming:

"I still think it's good for more people to get the vaccine. I'm not sure in that case how much of it was like a personal political gain that they were going for. I think that they had a kind of goal that they thought was in the interests of the country."

But Rogan wasn't having it. He fired back:

"Well, there's a bunch of problems with that," //

"There's the emergency use authorization that they needed in order to get this pushed through. And you can't have that without valid therapeutics being available. And so they suppressed valid therapeutics." //

"This was Fauci's game plan. I mean, this is the movie Dallas Buyers Club. That's Fauci in that movie. That was with the AIDS crisis. This exact same game plan that was played out with the COVID vaccine." //

They pushed one solution, this only one, suppressed all therapeutics through propaganda, through suppressing monoclonal antibodies, like all of it. And that was done, in my opinion, for profit. The amount of money that was made was extraordinary during that time." //

While Zuckerberg tried to frame the censorship as serving the greater good, Rogan exposed how it actually served to create a vaccine monopoly by eliminating discussion of alternative treatments.

For conservatives who have warned about the dangers of Big Tech-government collusion, this conversation provided smoking-gun evidence. It showed how content moderation policies were used to enforce a single narrative about COVID treatment, even when that meant suppressing legitimate medical information. //

Gordon of Cartoon
13 hours ago
Fascism is the systemic coordination of totalitarian government with monopolistic big business to crush competition and individual liberty. Naturally the thugs in charge get rich. //

Neil_
9 hours ago
Zuck is pulling back now because he probably realized colluding with the government in the way that he did is the definition of fascism. The Biden Administration and most leftist governments in Europe and around the world proved that leftists CAN be fascists.

mopani Neil_
a minute ago edited
It's because he doesn't want to cooperate with the next [Trump] administration, and free speech will be his defense.

He will pivot back to fascism and cooperation with the government as soon as the next Democrat administration counts along, he just won't advertise it like he is advertising the embrace of free speech.

David135
13 hours ago
Name names. Produce emails of all WH and Fed emails employees who were pressuring him and his company. Give them to the Taibbi gang to sort through. That would help a little.

bpbatch David135
12 hours ago
Yep, this. Musk put himself in danger with the Biden regime by exposure through the Twitter Files. Commission a "Facebook Files" type investigation and let the cards fall where they may, despite the political outcome. Do this, and I'll trust Zuck more, otherwise he's proving he's moving towards the constitutional right only for financial reasons and to save FB from the overturning of Section 230. //

veritaseequitas
2 hours ago
A) He must be losing money
B) He will change back if and when the Communist Democrats get back in office
C) He's a wuss who was too afraid to be a trail blazer. //

Mark Clancey
10 hours ago
What Could Mark Zuckerberg Do to Convince People He's Turned Into a Defender of Liberty?
Get on his knees and beg God and this nation for forgiveness that he spent $450 million to rig and steal the 2020 election. Until then he's just a garden variety Marxist twerp looking for secular salvation that will not come. //

Political-Paige
42 minutes ago edited
A tale of two billionaires.

Faced with the exact same pressures, Zuckerberg censored, lied, undermined a presidential election, and sentenced us to 4 years of national rot, while Musk spent 44 billion dollars of his own money to restore free speech across the globe and brought us back from the brink.

Before I go full throttle with my story, here's something I like to tell my kids when they wonder which side is telling the truth: The side that's trying to silence others are the liars. This is a complete rip-off from the teachings of the great Dennis Prager, but it consistently holds true.

And, oh how Zuck did silence us. //

Turns out, we weren't the only ones who amused themselves during lockdown by mocking our enfeebled president.

The botched Afghanistan withdrawal was our undoing. Zuck just wasn't going to let you criticize Joe Biden over this. //

Sorry, but Zuck's newfound love of free speech is just words at this point. His half-hearted pledge to improve things rings hollow to conservatives who have been under the ban hammer for at least a decade. An apology would be a good place to start, but being a leftist means never having to apologize.

There was some talk on X Tuesday about Facebook providing reparations to all the conservative accounts they damaged over the years, and I'm all for it. Zuck should put some money where his mouth is and prove he's serious about stopping the censorship.

Reparations for conservatives! //

Robert A Hahn
3 hours ago
All true, but we can't forget Dog 101: When the dog finally does something you've been trying to get him to do, give him a treat.

Doesn't have to be a big treat.

We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship. So we are going to get back to our roots, focus on reducing mistakes, simplifying our policies, and restoring free expression on our platforms.

This was disputed by the former fact-checkers in a New York Times article headlined, and I swear I'm not making this up, Mark Zuckerberg Says Meta Fact-Checkers Were the Problem. Fact-Checkers Rule That False. //

While the fact-checkers may be technically correct that they didn't have the authority to meddle with content on Facebook and Instagram, that is sort of like the guy working in the Zyklon B factory claiming he never gassed anyone. Of course, they knew what the result of their work product was, and of course, they acted with political bias. //

When we first reported rumors of a lab leak at Wuhan, we were forced to choose between staying in business and withdrawing a post. Both Mike Ford and I had posts pulled that dealt with January 6. These people were not only evil, but most of them were profoundly stupid. They literally did not understand the subject matter they were reviewing and made no effort to do so; on the bright side, there was no internal check on their journalistic terrorism by Meta, so YOLO; //

On Wednesday morning, the International Fact-Checking Network (there actually is such a thing) will convene an emergency meeting of its members to decide what to do. The money stream has dried up, and the few remaining clients for KGB-like editorial control don't have deep pockets. Most of them will, if there is justice, spend a long period of time unemployed and suffer financial devastation. //

Zuckerberg knows he's up to his eyebrows in highly questionable censorship activity at the behest of the Biden administration and that no one is around to rescue him now.

Hopefully, this will change the culture in Big Tech from defaulting toward fascistic government control to favoring individual freedom. Only time will tell.

Donald Trump has won again. ABC News and George Stephanopoulos have settled the defamation lawsuit brought by the incoming president, with the news network agreeing to pay $15 million in damages while also issuing an apology.

The lawsuit was first filed after Stephanopoulos claimed as a matter of fact that Trump had “raped” E. Jean Carroll. The comment came during an interview with Rep. Nancy Mace. [who is an actual rape victim]

Of course, the issue was that Trump has never been charged or convicted of rape criminally nor has he been found liable for rape in any civil suit. Stephanopoulos made it up in an attempt to bait Mace, and it ended up being the basis of the now-settled civil suit against he and ABC News.

Bash Ars Scholae Palatinae
20y
1,191

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

• To incite imminent lawless action.
  Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
• To make or distribute obscene materials.
  Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
• To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
  United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
• To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
• Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
• Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
  Morse v. Frederick, U.S. (2007).

What Does Free Speech Mean?
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.
www.uscourts.gov

In my estimation, Elon Musk is easily one of the most influential people in Western Culture, equal to, if not more so, than Donald Trump. He is a man who is taking us into the future by rectifying quite a few problems here in the present, be that our lagging behind on becoming a space-faring species, or the fight against censorship and the protection of our human right to free speech.

Musk's business and ideological aims align with the right, and as it so happens, that's the side Trump is on, and so logic would follow that Musk and Trump, two men of vast influence and vision, would find themselves allied and working together. //

But if you take a step back and look at what Musk is actually stating, you'll start to realize that the influence they think Musk is spreading isn't his. He is not the source, merely a recipient like many other people.

In truth, Musk was, like many other people in the Western world, "red-pilled" by experience, leftist incompetence and hatred, and a drive for success that was being hampered by leftist entities. //

Take, for example, this post he made on Tuesday where he was commenting on the head of NPR, Katherine Maher, and her infamous words about the need for censorship.

“I think our reverence for the truth might have become a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus and getting important things done,” Maher told a crowd during a speech.

This prompted Musk to ask a simple question.

"Should your tax dollars really be paying for an organization run by people who think the truth is a 'distraction,'" he asked. //

There is no ignoring Musk like they ignore us, but Musk is just saying what we're saying, and if they hate what he has to say that much, then what does that say about their attitudes toward you?

But it is a third theory for Trump’s resounding victory, posited by many on the left, that should cause grave concern to liberty lovers because it forewarns of an acceleration of efforts to control the marketplace of ideas. Here, Harris’ loss was blamed not on the far-left policies and candidate voters rejected or on the supposed racist and sexist beliefs of the electorate, but on voters purportedly being “misinformed” by the right-wing controlled media.

By the end of last week, this theme had flooded the airways and social media. But it was the New Republic’s article, “Why Does No One Understand the Real Reason Trump Won?,” that best capsulated this spin.

The New Republic’s article from Thursday declared the purported “reason” for Trump’s victory: “It wasn’t the economy. It wasn’t inflation, or anything else. It was how people perceive those things, which points to one overpowering answer.” “The answer is the right-wing media,” author Michael Tomasky pontificated, continuing:

“Today, the right-wing media — Fox News (and the entire News Corp.), Newsmax, One America News Network, the Sinclair network of radio and TV stations and newspapers, iHeart Media (formerly Clear Channel), the Bott Radio Network (Christian radio), Elon Musk’s X, the huge podcasts like Joe Rogan’s, and much more — sets the news agenda in this country. And they fed their audiences a diet of slanted and distorted information that made it possible for Trump to win.”

This argument was laughable to conservatives and Republicans who, unlike many of their liberal and Democrat contemporaries, do not limit their news intake to coverage from like-minded media outlets. Thus, the right saw what statistics bore out — “that broadcast evening news coverage of the 2024 presidential race has been the most lopsided in history,” with legacy outlets, like ABC, CBS and NBC, providing Harris “78% positive coverage, while these same networks have pummeled former Republican President Donald Trump with 85% negative coverage.”

The legacy networks also hosted and controlled the presidential and vice-presidential debates, providing even more skewed coverage of the competing candidacies. And these media outlets regularly pushed — or unquestioningly accepted — false and misleading claims about Trump and Vance.

The repetitive false reporting that Donald Trump had called neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville “very fine people” — a claim even debunked by Snopes — alone proves the point. But ordinary Americans, having lived through the Russia collusion hoax and the false claims that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation, and also having witnessed the blatant bias of the networks during the debate, no longer needed solid proof to question the veracity of the legacy outlets. And the populace then turned to alternative media to assess the truth.

Herein, we saw the difference about 2024: It isn’t that the right controls the media or misinforms the populace, but that the left no longer can — at least not unimpeded.

There is a compelling reason that the Supreme Court has regularly ruled that falsehoods are protected speech. The Court openly recognizes that falsehoods can be harmful and may sometimes be quite harmful, but the Court also recognizes that efforts to determine which information is true and which is false are far more harmful to our democracy. The line between whether content can be labeled true or false, or whether it is simply viewpoint disagreement can be blurry and very much in the eye of the beholder. This is especially true of political content and policy debates. This is also the fundamental premise of the First Amendment, which protects free speech and free press. //

Those who wish for regulatory power to ensure “politically correct” content moderation need to answer these fundamental questions: Should the political party who temporarily runs the government be allowed to act as arbiter of what’s true or false, ... //

How will such regulatory power work if the governing political party in the White House switches every four or eight years and the rules dramatically change when a new political party wins? Today, private companies acting as news organizations have their own free speech rights to publish and label their own opinions as true and opposing opinions as false. This works as long as there are multiple competing news companies... //

Rather than attempting to legislate definitions of online safety and viewpoint neutrality, which seems exceedingly difficult in the current deeply divided partisan environment of Washington, D.C., there is another simpler solution.

The simple solution is to mandate full and detailed transparency of:

1. All enforcement actions taken by the online platforms...
   ... //

Such transparency would allow the online platforms to be compared on a peer-to-peer basis for online safety and viewpoint neutrality. Such transparency would also shine the harsh light of publicity on all government efforts to influence online platforms, ...

Before November 2020, when the hate speech clause was adopted, the code of ethics all related to how real estate agents and affiliates worked with clients, Fauber said. Now that has changed.

“The NAR has now given themselves permission to police real estate agents 24/7,” Fauber said. “It’s deeply troubling that an organization like the NAR can police my life, and complaints can be filed against me for reading a passage of scripture, even in church; that a person wouldn’t even have to be present to file a complaint about me. That’s far reaching.” //

In Virginia, phone calls of cases like Fauber’s come pouring in daily, Cobb said, regarding someone who has lost a job or suffered significant harm due to their faith. //

Christian realtor Hadassah Carter recently won her case against the Virginia Real Estate Board, citing harassment and discrimination for her beliefs. Carter included Bible verses and Christian phrases on her website and was subjected to monitoring and accused of violating Virginia’s fair housing statutes by the board due to her religious speech.

The Supreme Court will not halt Special Counsel Jack Smith’s review of private messages between former President Donald Trump and Twitter, now known as X.

On Monday, the nine-justice panel issued handed down their decision without explanation, declining to consider Trump’s challenge against Smith’s secret warrant.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) first sought the records in January last year, demanding a complete trove of private information including Trump’s search history, direct messages, account settings, and activity under the “@realDonaldTrump” username. According to The Hill, the government obtained a nondisclosure order to bar X from revealing the existence of the warrant, even to the former president.

“The company challenged the order, arguing the records were potentially covered by executive privilege and not being able to tell Trump violated the First Amendment,” The Hill reported. “Court filings show X at one point was fined $350,000 for not timely turning over Trump’s data.”

Attempts to block Smith’s surveillance in the lower courts, however, failed. The Supreme Court ultimately refused to hear another challenge to the warrant in Smith’s criminal case, which is related to the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

🚨BREAKING: Hillary Clinton went to CNN to announce that they are losing control and that Social Media companies should increase their censorship on Conservative misinformation.

Hillary Clinton: "we lose total control." pic.twitter.com/k9VEhegFP7

— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) October 5, 2024 //

This is what the government politicians say, right before they are about to impinge on your rights. The phrase about yelling fire in a crowded theater is often used by people trying to curb speech without really understanding the context in which it was used. It was in non-binding dicta in a case that was then later overturned so it was never a binding thought on anything. So when people use it, it reveals they’re not aware of the law. //

CyberChick @warriors_mom
·
Can you smell the sulphur from here? 😈

Tom Elliott @tomselliott
Hillary: “We should be in my view, repealing something called Section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity … Whether it‘s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram, or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don‘t moderate & monitor the content we lose total control”
Embedded video
8:21 PM · Oct 5, 2024

Freedom of speech isn't just a legal right, but a way of life. On its history