Posted on Aug 17, 2018
Trump Campaign Manager: Big Tech ‘Is Actively Trying To Silence’ Conservatives
847
5
3
3
3
0
“Big Tech’s anti-conservative bias is positively institutional. Facebook, Google (YouTube), and Twitter all work with the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-left organization with a proven track record of anti-conservative bias, to decide what is and isn’t ‘hate speech,'” Parscale wrote in the Washington Examiner op-ed.
Parscale pointed to the many examples of Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube’s recent bans on outspoken conservative pundits.
The few examples he lists are: Republican congressional candidate Elizabeth Heng, whose ad was banned on Facebook, and controversial commentator Alex Jones and his website Infowars, who was de-platformed on Facebook and YouTube.
Additionally, Parscale called out Twitter hypocrisy for temporarily banning Candace Owens, but not Sarah Jeong. Owens is the Media Director of Turning Point USA — a college student organization. She parodied tweets written by Jeong, The New York Times’ new editorial board member, who has a history of racist anti-white tweets.
Owens restated Jeong’s tweets, except made them anti-Semetic.Twitter later said it was “an error.”
The censorship, Parscale alludes to, is borderline illegal under the Communications Decency Act, which sets the legal differences between a publisher and an open forum, like Twitter and Facebook.
Publishers are subject to libel laws, whereas public forums are not held accountable for libel because they are not the publisher of said libel. (RELATED: Google Tracks Users Regardless Of Privacy Settings, Here’s How To Delete It)
“[W]ebsites such as Facebook and Twitter are not treated as publishers of ‘information provided by another’ — which would subject them to libel laws and other headaches publishers have to deal with — because they ‘offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse,'” he writes.
Parscale added: “Big Tech is not just biased against conservatives — it is actively trying to silence them and deprive them of online platforms.”
Parscale pointed to the many examples of Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube’s recent bans on outspoken conservative pundits.
The few examples he lists are: Republican congressional candidate Elizabeth Heng, whose ad was banned on Facebook, and controversial commentator Alex Jones and his website Infowars, who was de-platformed on Facebook and YouTube.
Additionally, Parscale called out Twitter hypocrisy for temporarily banning Candace Owens, but not Sarah Jeong. Owens is the Media Director of Turning Point USA — a college student organization. She parodied tweets written by Jeong, The New York Times’ new editorial board member, who has a history of racist anti-white tweets.
Owens restated Jeong’s tweets, except made them anti-Semetic.Twitter later said it was “an error.”
The censorship, Parscale alludes to, is borderline illegal under the Communications Decency Act, which sets the legal differences between a publisher and an open forum, like Twitter and Facebook.
Publishers are subject to libel laws, whereas public forums are not held accountable for libel because they are not the publisher of said libel. (RELATED: Google Tracks Users Regardless Of Privacy Settings, Here’s How To Delete It)
“[W]ebsites such as Facebook and Twitter are not treated as publishers of ‘information provided by another’ — which would subject them to libel laws and other headaches publishers have to deal with — because they ‘offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse,'” he writes.
Parscale added: “Big Tech is not just biased against conservatives — it is actively trying to silence them and deprive them of online platforms.”
Trump Campaign Manager: Big Tech ‘Is Actively Trying To Silence’ Conservatives
Posted from dailycaller.com
Media
Social Media
Freedom
Freedom of Speech
Law
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
1
1
0
Maj John Bell
In what way? I find it chilling, very George Orwell's "1984" chilling.
While I believe that the social media sites have the right to "moderate" what is allowable and what is not on their sites, I don't support the actual moderation unless the speech crosses over line into unprotected speech (Calls to violence, slander, libel, etc. etc.)
For those who are not overly fond of President Trump or Maxine Waters, aren't their use of twitter one of the best sources of determining what their core values are and are not.
One of the great things about the 1st Amendment is that whether an ass means to or not, sooner or later they will tell you they are an ass. Limiting their access to social media, limits the ability of the public to identify the ass. Censorship, particularly censorship by controlling access shows a an attitude of patronizing superiority and disdain on the part of the censor. Aren't these social media sites implying that the public is not astute enough to figure out that an ass is an ass?
While I believe that the social media sites have the right to "moderate" what is allowable and what is not on their sites, I don't support the actual moderation unless the speech crosses over line into unprotected speech (Calls to violence, slander, libel, etc. etc.)
For those who are not overly fond of President Trump or Maxine Waters, aren't their use of twitter one of the best sources of determining what their core values are and are not.
One of the great things about the 1st Amendment is that whether an ass means to or not, sooner or later they will tell you they are an ass. Limiting their access to social media, limits the ability of the public to identify the ass. Censorship, particularly censorship by controlling access shows a an attitude of patronizing superiority and disdain on the part of the censor. Aren't these social media sites implying that the public is not astute enough to figure out that an ass is an ass?
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google