May 7, 2019
In a new chapter of the ongoing saga of conservative pundits attempting to justify censorship as the internet is cleansed of everyone who does not fit into the controlled opposition mold, the unbelievable shill Charlie Kirk, the head of Turning Point USA, has jumped in with some libertarian nonsense about government contracts.
RT if you believe it is time for @realDonaldTrump to sign an executive order banning tech companies from getting federal contracts due to viewpoint discrimination
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) May 5, 2019
This is absolutely a complete non-starter. I don’t know how many federal contracts social media companies get – I don’t know if they even get any, beyond probably some advertisement deals – but I do know that they will sacrifice those contracts to be able to censor.
What Kirk is doing is coming out and trying to get in front of a conservative push to classify the big social media companies as common carriers – that is, public utilities – which would force them to provide universal service.
Tiana Lowe, a journalist trained in cuckservative shilling by the National Review and a juicy little strumpet, has been leading the charge against free speech online. Lowe recently claimed that the people complaining about censorship have no plan to fix the problem.
This is simply a lie, and Charlie Kirk is propagating that lie by coming up with a retarded fake solution as if there isn’t already an easy and obvious solution that everyone is already demanding.
Other controlled opposition shills are following Ted Cruz and saying that Twitter and Facebook should lose their CDA 230 “platform” status and be treated instead as “publishers,” which would mean they could be held legally responsible for everything that gets posted on their site, which would theoretically make it impossible for them to function and force them to go back to allowing freedom of speech. However, in practice, if they lost CDA 230 publisher status, the government would just create some new status for them that removed their responsibility for content.
The only solution is the obvious solution that everyone who isn’t a shill is calling for: classify them as public utilities.
The Communications Act of 1934 included a provision for “universal service” for telephone lines, meaning everyone in the country was guaranteed access to a telephone line. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded universal service protections to broadband internet, classifying it as a common carrier.
Both of these laws involved regulating private companies by telling them they were required to provide service to everyone. It is illegal for a private company to deny you a telephone line or broadband internet if they are capable of providing it to you. They cannot say “we think you’re a racist so we’re not going to serve you.”
And yet, I have not seen any of these libertarians, who are arguing that it would violate “values and principles” for the government to regulate internet companies, call for the communications acts of 1934 and 1996 to be repealed. (Nor am I aware of any kind of negative “socialist” effects having resulted from these laws.)
Furthermore, I have not heard any of them call for the government to repeal laws that require private utility companies to provide electricity, water and heating to every member of society, let alone call for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act, which is the most grievous violation of freedom of association in all of American legislative history.
Libertarianism is almost always selectively used as a tactic to allow the government to skirt its regulatory responsibilities by claiming a private company has a right to do whatever they want.
We have a government that is supposed to make laws to protect the wellbeing and freedom of the people. The purpose of new laws is to deal with the changes in society. If society didn’t change, then you would never need to make new laws, because after founding a country, you would quickly get to a point where you already had all the laws you need.
Right now, we need laws to protect our First Amendment, as we are experiencing a de facto removal of our rights to free speech by the tech oligopoly.
It is a self-evident fact that the internet is a tool that is much more necessary for participating in modern life than the telephone ever was. Right now, we have laws that guarantee access to a telephone landline, but none that guarantee access to Facebook, even though far more communication takes place on Facebook than over a landline telephone.
And we are most assuredly not a more libertarian society than we were in 1934. The government has never in history been more involved in the life of the average citizen.
The Daily Stormer has been banned from the following services:
- Dozens of web hosts
- Dozens of domain registrars
- Every payment processor
And many more that I can’t remember right now.
I have never done anything illegal on this website. I have never been charged with a crime for anything I did on this website. I have never been accused of doing anything illegal on this website. All I have ever done is engage in Constitutionally-protected free speech.
My almost complete removal from the entire internet was cheered on by liberals, who were using the same libertarian arguments that conservatives are now using to try to justify why they don’t think tech companies should be regulated: “A private company can do whatever it wants to anyone.”
Meanwhile, the same people who claimed that massive multinational corporations can do whatever they want to do to a political dissident were cheering the government on as small, family-run Christian cake makers were being run out of business for refusing to bake homosexual cakes.
If you actually wanted to get down into the weeds with these libertarians and their ideology – I personally have no interest in doing so – they are in fact violating their own principles. Whereas a Christian bakery is simply a space that has been rented out, these tech companies rely on the internet, the development of which was paid for by the taxpayer. They also use broadband infrastructure, much of which was paid for by the taxpayer. So the argument for regulating them is much stronger than the argument for various “Civil Rights” legislation.
The only reason that anyone would be against the government regulating the tech industry is that they want to silence political dissidents. That is the case whether the argument is being made by liberals who openly oppose the First Amendment, or conservative shills like Charlie Kirk and Tiana Lowe who concern troll about “socialism.”