Free speech is under attack in a sneaky, sleazy and sinister way

free speech

-

Let's face it, in a corporatist oligarchy, aka fascisst state, censorship ostensibly performed by "private parties" in the form of huge corporations who are co-oligarchs and partners in assorted enterprises with the formal "government" is nothing short of government censorship, especially when they are responding to pressure from said formal "government". Once again, Caitlin, has hit that nail squarely on the head and done a great job of it. As a result, I'm reprinting the relevant column here:

***

Caitlin Johnstone
Sat, May 2, 7:07 PM (1 day ago)
to me

***

New post on Caitlin Johnstone

Why You Should Oppose The Censorship Of David Icke (Hint: It’s Got Nothing To Do With Icke)
by Caitlin Johnstone
Within 48 hours both Facebook and then Youtube have deleted the accounts of David Icke for posting "content that disputes the existence and transmission of Covid-19 as described by the WHO and the NHS." Other platforms may soon fall in suit, as they did with Alex Jones in 2018.

This article is not about David Icke. I will say it again in italics for the especially dense: this article is not about David Icke. This article is about why we shouldn't be okay with monopolistic billionaire-owned Silicon Valley tech giants with extensive ties to US government agencies controlling human communication.

I know next to nothing about David Icke, and I have done exactly zero research into his views for this article; for all I know he's every bit the raving lunatic the narrative managers say he is. It doesn't matter. What matters is that we're seeing a consistent and accelerating pattern of powerful plutocratic institutions collaborating with the US-centralized empire to control what ideas people around the world are permitted to share with each other, and it's a very unsafe trajectory. Making this conversation about Icke and his views distracts from the very important topic we need to actually focus on discussing.

“The people who want to add a censorship regime to a health crisis are more dangerous and more stupid by leaps and bounds than a president who tells people to inject disinfectant.” https://t.co/KFA8jC6XiY

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) April 30, 2020

Journalist Matt Taibbi recently wrote an excellent essay about the dangers inherent in the increased demand we've been seeing for more censorship and deplatforming during the coronavirus pandemic, correctly arguing that more authoritarian control over the ideas people are allowed to discuss is vastly more dangerous than the ideas themselves.

"The people who want to add a censorship regime to a health crisis are more dangerous and more stupid by leaps and bounds than a president who tells people to inject disinfectant," Taibbi writes. "It’s astonishing that they don’t see this."

"Instead of asking calmly if hydroxychloroquine works, or if the less restrictive Swedish crisis response has merit, or questioning why certain statistical assumptions about the seriousness of the crisis might have been off, we’re denouncing the questions themselves as infamous," says Taibbi.

Taibbi argues against the increasingly normalized trend of elevating "authoritative" content while silencing content which does not wear that magical label in an attempt to fight disinformation. If you examine which content is considered "authoritative", you'll find a bunch of outlets who have consistently lied to the world about war after war, who spent years promoting the baseless conspiracy theory that Vladimir Putin had infiltrated and secured control over the executive branch of the US government, who consistently normalize a status quo which is wholly incompatible with the surviving and thriving of life on this planet.

Two weeks after the Atlantic Council explained to us that we need to be propagandized for our own good, Facebook announces a new partnership with the Atlantic Council to make sure we're getting the right kinds of information.https://t.co/aXwHvxdREXhttps://t.co/3CkVtvBs0s pic.twitter.com/sEz52VjNTe

— Caitlin Johnstone ? (@caitoz) May 17, 2018

Google, who owns Youtube, has been financially intertwined with US intelligence agencies since its very inception when it received research grants from the CIA and NSA for mass surveillance. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg has called on the government to take "a more active role" in regulating "harmful content", and has been actively collaborating with government agencies and government-funded think tanks to decide what content to remove. Social media executives are now routinely called before government hearings and lectured about the need to increase censorship under the implicit threat of antitrust cases being brought to bear. These massive corporations now consistently censor with an extreme bias against governments which refuse to bow to the demands of the US government and its allies.

In 2017, representatives of Facebook, Twitter, and Google were instructed on the US Senate floor that it is their responsibility to “quell information rebellions” and adopt a “mission statement” expressing their commitment to “prevent the fomenting of discord.”

“Civil wars don’t start with gunshots, they start with words,” the representatives were told. “America’s war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily transform us into the Divided States of America.”

Whenever anyone objects to censorship on these massive platforms they're always told that those platforms are private companies who are free to do what they like on their private property, but how "private" is a corporation that is interlaced with government power with increasing inseparability? The reality is that in a corporatist system of government with vanishingly few meaningful distinctions between corporate power and state power, corporate censorship is state censorship.

Narrative Managers Argue China-Like Internet Censorship Is Needed

"The only difference between @TheAtlantic article and something you might read on a libertarian site is that this article argues that all of these regulations on speech are a good thing."https://t.co/aXhhlQY366

— Caitlin Johnstone ? (@caitoz) April 27, 2020

Proponents of increased internet censorship have already openly conceded this point. A recent Atlantic article by two legal professors subtitled "In the debate over freedom versus control of the global network, China was largely correct, and the U.S. was wrong", the case is made that western internet censorship will necessarily involve a collaboration with "private" corporations and government power.

"As surprising as it may sound, digital surveillance and speech control in the United States already show many similarities to what one finds in authoritarian states such as China," the article's authors favorably argue. "Constitutional and cultural differences mean that the private sector, rather than the federal and state governments, currently takes the lead in these practices, which further values and address threats different from those in China. But the trend toward greater surveillance and speech control here, and toward the growing involvement of government, is undeniable and likely inexorable."

Apart from the fact that they are here claiming that increasingly authoritarian speech control is good and necessary, these two bootlickers are absolutely correct. Human communication is indeed being controlled using the so-called "private sector" to circumvent constitutional limitations which prohibit the government from censoring speech directly.

These Silicon Valley tech corporations have ensured their continued monopolistic dominance by demonstrating their willingness to collaborate with establishment power structures, so there are no platforms of anywhere near the same size and influence that people can move to if they don't feel like letting government-tied plutocrats police what thoughts are permitted to enter into their minds. This has given this corporate-government alliance the ability to control the thoughts that people are allowed to share, discuss and think about in the same way totalitarian governments can, with the false mask of freedom plastered over it.

A truly free being does not need an alliance of plutocrats and government agencies to protect their mind from David Icke. A truly free being does not want an alliance of plutocrats and government agencies to exert any control whatsoever over what ideas they are permitted to share and what thoughts they are permitted to think. A truly free being opposes with all their might any attempt to lock in a paradigm where human communication (and thereby thought) is controlled by vast unaccountable power structures.

Be a truly free being. Oppose this intrusion into your mental sovereignty.

________________________

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics onTwitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my books Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Share
up
30 users have voted.

Comments

snoopydawg's picture

Alex Jones got banned from Facebook. I wrote about it at the time here and the tweet I wrote is still getting likes today. As Caitlin and many others point out it is not just coming from social media and therefore it isn't censorship. It is being done with the wishes of our government and mostly the Atlantic Council which is funded by our government and NATO. Yeah it is censorship by the government. I wish people could understand that.

Banning conspiracist David Icke is WRONG - because it strengthens his claim that we’re sleepwalking towards DICTATORSHIP

Writing in the Observer on April 25, Nick Cohen berated social media platforms for not banning Icke.

Less than 20 minutes after he tweeted his piece, the “mysterious wikipedia editor” Andrew Philip Cross had added the article to Icke’s wiki page.

And, just a week later, both Facebook and YouTube had obliged, deleting Icke and all his work.

Cohen argued there was a “liberal” case for banning Icke. But there isn‘t and it‘s extremely Orwellian to suggest that there is. No one is forced to listen to Icke or read his books. If Cohen takes issue with Icke‘s positions, he should challenge him to a public debate. If what Icke says is so obviously crackers, then the Observer columnist should be able to wipe the floor with him very easily. Instead, he seems to want him silenced. That's disturbing.

The silencing of views we disagree with puts us on the fast-track to tyranny. In chapter two in his classic 1859 text ‘On Liberty’, John Stuart Mill explained why silencing dissenting opinions is wrong.

up
15 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

enhydra lutris's picture

@snoopydawg

speech, that is per se illiberal behavior. Of course, liberal doesn't relly mean much f anything anymore.

be well and have a good one.

up
10 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

snoopydawg's picture

@enhydra lutris

to investigate Halper and Grim who broke Tara’s story? This woman does and says a lot of dumb things, but that was her dumbest. She deleted her tweet, but lots of people grabbed it before she did. Trump’s presidency has dumbed down too many people that’s for sure.

up
11 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

snoopydawg's picture

@snoopydawg

up
8 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

enhydra lutris's picture

@snoopydawg

and, of late, especially the Democrats.

be well and have a good one.

up
7 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Centaurea's picture

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg

to give them that excuse. Trump didn't force them to behave like a raging mob full of fascist zombies. That's all on them.

Trump’s presidency has dumbed down too many people that’s for sure.

up
5 users have voted.

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

vtcc73's picture

Property rights, what constitutes "government" in this age, free speech, and a constitution that was written by men who couldn't possibly foresee the issues of a current age are all in tension and conflict like never before. Want another example?

Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

What difference is this from what Caitlan's post demands that we oppose? Well, other than most of us agree with her at some level. Our agreement is not a basis for her exclusion being any different.

Thorny issue, no? But what are we going to do about it?

It's easy for me. I've never had a use for social media. Too shallow, too cliquish, too toxic,and owned/controlled by a pack of sociopaths farming packs of the clueless shouting at the world to sooth their deep insecurity and realize a desire to be relevant. Abandon social media and it will wither.

up
13 users have voted.

"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."

enhydra lutris's picture

@vtcc73
original published of her work has an inherent copyright. She chooses to waive it for selected individuals and groups. She chooses to do so by specifically enumerating, via definition, those for whom it is not waived. She is in no way trying to silence those sites nor to in any way limit whatever original content they may choose to publish, she is simply electing to refuse to allow them to republish her content. This could be as simple and straightforward as trying to avoid having her name and reputation linked to those sites, which is certainly her right to do and in no way censors them from publishing their own content or that of anybody who gives them permission, like, maybe Nazis or somesuch.

be well and have a good one.

up
14 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

vtcc73's picture

@enhydra lutris @enhydra lutris arguments angle. It's not the same thing when someone advocating for freedom of speech hides behind a property ownership law to protect their censorship. It's a legal distinction, waiver for favored people vs censor of unfavored people, but still demands an exception to freedom of speech. She's saying that what she writes is free to those who she doesn't care to be associated with. There is either a freedom or there isn't.

I have nothing against Caitlin. I agree with her. There is, however, a blindspot in her thinking. Using a law intended for another purpose to permit her to censor a group of people, no matter how abhorrent their views, is still censorship. Isn't the point of freedom of speech that no matter how much we disagree with what others say, or how terrible their ideas, they won't be sanctioned by the law. It's not that simple. Certain speech is and should be prohibited. We may disagree with what is not protected but that has to be left to someone like the highest courts in the country.

My point is that too many of us only support rights when it is convenient and/or does not directly affect us. We're, me included, often unaware of our personal blind spots. It's hard to support the right of someone to say something about us or use our words in a way we did not intend and may create a problem for us. That wee crack is a real tough thing for all of us at times.

What bothers me most personally is that so many can't accept the necessary connection between rights and responsibilities. But that's a different conversation.

Thanks for the post. Take care.

up
4 users have voted.

"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."

enhydra lutris's picture

@vtcc73
here, I am pretty much free to do so. If I wish to post another person's work, I am not free to do so, and them prohibiting me from so doing is not censorship. If somebody gives me permission to publish their work, that is all fine and dandy, but if they do not, it isn't censorship, because it is not My writing or My speech. Unless it is in the public domain, or an excerpt covered by fair use, their work is theirs only and I can only use it with their permission.

If I steal a painting and put it on display as part of a series of artworks making some point I wish to convey and the owner finds out and comes and takes it back, they aren't censoring me, they are simply taking possession of their work which I had purloined. What is bothering you is that Caitlin lets some people use her work but not others, but she is being generous in allowing such wide use, she has no obligation to let anybody use it. Think of all of the rock artists who have had politicians whom they despise try to use their music as a theme song. They needn't allow it, and often publicly and vociferously don't, and this is not really any different.

up
12 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

vtcc73's picture

@enhydra lutris You don't see the point. You are only looking at it from your perspective. That's fine.

up
1 user has voted.

"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."

Russiagate opened the proverbial floodgates for the justification of censorship. And from there moved to "bad actors", etc. And this censorship was demanded by all sides of the political spectrum plus mass media outlets. I fully expect some sort of "material sanctions" against those who do get censored.

up
9 users have voted.
enhydra lutris's picture

@MrWebster
if that turns out to be the case. This country has a Puritan ethos at its core, and the punishment or heresy and non-conformity, in one way or another has been part of our history since day one.

be well and have a good one.

up
7 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

in late March for posting my instructions for making a face mask out of two coffee filters, some ribbon and some scotch tape. I pointed out that wearing a home-made mask could decrease the risk of transmitting the virus.

The PTB were saying we should not wear masks. I was "guilty" of posting Fake News. There are dozens of articles in refereed professional journals pointing out that wearing masks decreases the spread of infection.

If even a few people had worn masks because they read correct information about masks it not only could have given them some protection but protected all the people they would not have infected. I have wondered how many others also got kicked off for encouraging use of home-made face masks. The person(s) who kicked us off Reddit is/are responsible for every single person who dies because they could not read accurate information about face mask.

up
7 users have voted.
vtcc73's picture

@ScienceTeacher You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a bunch of howler monkeys flinging poo. receiving an AMF from Reddit is merciful and good for our mental health.

up
5 users have voted.

"Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now..."

enhydra lutris's picture

@ScienceTeacher

especially when you are right. But, as vtcc notes above, you might be better off. I wandered in there based on some bad advice I'd received but didn't stay very long at all, maybe measured in a couple of hours across a couple of days.

be well and have a good one.

up
2 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

@enhydra lutris
When I got fed up several elections ago with the self-censoring necessary at DK I lurked a bit at Reddit. Howler monkeys flinging poo is certainly a vivid but apt description. Posting helpful information there about how to avoid getting the virus was more of a dutiful contribution to society. I really have been teaching high school science recently but would have tried to only be a socially acceptable, submissive teacher there to get people to listen to me. It would have been a chore.

I have thought about logging into DK to post some of my stuff but do not want to put up with the political correctness police. This epidemic threatens poor people much more than rich or upper-middle-class people. Minorities are suffering more because more individuals in minority groups are poor. I know that pointing this out is not PC. Pointing out that men are more likely to die from this is probably "sexist". The owner of DK has a right to run his site as he sees fit but it is very annoying to see that some MSM venues are citing DK as if it is a journalistic source.

The enablers of the PTB are shooting themselves in the foot by enforcing group-think. I understand that Reddit is owned by a large corporation.

up
6 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@ScienceTeacher

on way of the bern for asking people to post links to articles and tweets instead of just screen shots. Imagine if anyone he wrote an essay without providing the link to it or crediting the person that wrote it. My last comment on it was I thought it was lazy writing to not do that. Boy did the author jump my me.

There is a lot of people that will down vote you there for stating your opinion that goes against the opinions of the group. I usually respond to them with a "How daily kos of you". ANd that too gets down voted. Well when you do what you left a site for doing that doesn't make you better than them. Opinions should be questioned not just shot down.

up
3 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

because a friend with whom I had been discussing the Atlantic Council and their involvement in censorship found and sent me a link to someone's essay about it here.

Unfortunately, the problem has continued to get worse - Alex Jones was entirely correct in predicting, months before it happened, that there would be a concerted attack to take down Infowars and that if that succeeded there would be an expanded effort to take down independent media generally. Now we are seeing that continue to play out.

I haven't watched that much of David Icke, but the PTB sure seem to fear him. A recent interview on the extremely popular Youtube channel London Real with him was immediately taken down - I gather part of it had to do with health and privacy effects of 5G and with forced vaccination.

Here is AJ's interview of London Real's founder Brian Rose about the incident:

It is on Banned.video which I can't, for some reason, get to embed

And a subsequent (post youtube ban) Rose/Icke interview (May 4) is here

up
5 users have voted.
enhydra lutris's picture

@Blue Republic
activities of the Atlantic Council played a role in bringing you here. Thanks for reading.

be well and have a good one.

up
4 users have voted.

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

snoopydawg's picture

@Blue Republic

I started writing about the Atlantic Council's role in censorship when Alex Jones was banned from social media. I include lots of background info on who is in it and where they get their funding. I was appalled by how many people cheered when Jones got banned. As I mentioned the other day I wrote a tweet about it months ago and people are still re tweeting or liking it. There are enough people that see how wrong it was, but sadly there are more that need to.

Another group that makes its members tow the party line is the CAA which I can't provide a link to right now. If you're interested I will go digging for it. But they came out against Tulsi when she stepped down from the DNC in 2016 and supported Bernie. You do or you get kicked out.

up
4 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

@snoopydawg

Appalling, yes... The idea that the price of keeping freedom of expression for yourself necessarily entails putting up with and defending the same freedom for people you find obnoxious - is not exactly rocket surgery but too many people don't get it - or simply reject it.

Went back and found the article that landed me here, turns out it was by gjohnsit from 02/20/18

The Atlantic Council: At the center of the Russiagate hysteria

You're right down there in the comments. of course.

- Cheers. BR

up
3 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

seems, ironically enough, to be coming from right-wing populists.

Unsurprisingly, pretty much every trick in the book is used to denigrate them and keep them from being seen or heard in the media in any way that might show them in a positive light.

up
0 users have voted.