Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Leftists and Media Cheer As Mega-Corporations Strip Away Free Speech Rights

  1. #1
    Anachronism "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Huginn ok Muninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Germany, Norway, England
    Subrace
    Nordeby
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Farther right than you.
    Posts
    3,038
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    617
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    745
    Thanked in
    355 Posts

    Leftists and Media Cheer As Mega-Corporations Strip Away Free Speech Rights

    Leftists and Media Cheer as Mega-Corporations Strip Away Free Speech Rights

    by John Nolte29 Aug 20171,131

    Some 25 years ago when I made the move from the political left to the political right, I took with me three liberal ideals: I remained an extremist on the issues of free speech and the rights of the accused, and have held on to my loathing for Big Business. A quick glance at today’s headlines proves that those ideals no longer belong to the left.

    From President Trump to George Zimmerman to Antifa, the Democrat Party and its media have surrendered all claims of the moral high ground on the issue of due process and have even embraced (as long as it is against the correct people, meaning everyone from neo-Nazis to Trump supporters) violent vigilantism. Then — like something out of Robocop or Demolition Man — there is the issue of how those who call themselves progressive and liberals cheer on corporations that have seized control of how Americans communicate and how those corporations have used that control to censor us.

    Case in point, a headline I never thought I would read at the left-wing Guardian:
    The far right is losing its ability to speak freely online. Should the left defend it?

    Keep in mind that this is the same Guardian whose editorial board just last week cheered the decision to “censor the Internet.”

    The issue, in this specific case, involves Stormfront and the Daily Stormer, two white supremacist websites booted off the internet by their web hosts. Now that no one will host these racist sites, the Daily Stormer has been forced to retreat to what’s known as the Dark Net, which makes it inaccessible to most everyone.

    But as the Guardian points out, this corporate censorship is not just taking place against neo-Nazis. Twitter and Facebook have become the 21st-century versions of Ma Bell, or the telephone (in other words, the primary means by which Americans communicate with one another) and both sites have become notorious censors and scolds. Under the guise of “hate speech” and the demonic media’s ever-expanding definition of the “alt-right,” today’s Ma Bells are always monitoring your phone calls and warning you not to say “this” or “that” under the threat of cutting your telephone wires altogether.

    The lazy conservative argument is that “a corporation has every right to run itself as it pleases.” In a perfect world, yes. But conservatives should also oppose monopolies when a corporation becomes so large, overwhelming and necessary that you have no place else to go. How many websites would be lost without the ability to promote its posts on Facebook or Twitter?

    And then there is the matter of the Daily Stormer.
    If corporations band together and choose to ban you from the Internet, you lose your ability to exist.

    Moreover, there actually is a conspiracy afoot…

    The Silicon Valley robber barons and the media are scheming to continue to expand the definitions of hate speech and the alt-right to include opinions and people they do not like. For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is the tip of this spear, an organization the establishment media takes seriously for only one cynical reason — because it gives them the cover they so desire to label those of us who do not hold the “correct” views on immigration, gay marriage, affirmative action and the welfare state, as part of the neo-Nazi brotherhood. And by extension, this makes the traditional conservatives and Christians part of the neo-Nazi brotherhood.
    See where this is going? And it is happening in ways big and small.
    The media and left not only cheer on campaigns that target a right-leaning site’s advertisers, which in turn gives corporations another form of veto power over speech, they express no outrage when corporations fire individuals over their personal political views.

    How can a freeborn American enjoy the spirit of the First Amendment when mega-corporations are given the power to destroy and disappear us? We can’t. But do we really want to give neo-Nazis a platform?
    Yes — yes, we do.

    Hey, I’m a Roman Catholic married to a Mexican. You think I have any love for white supremacists like the KKK? Or Marxist supremacists like Antifa? Or the black supremacists in Black Lives Matter? Or the Hispanic supremacists in La Raza? Or the Islamic supremacists in CAIR? Or the cultural supremacists at CNN? They are all sides of a single coin. But they all should enjoy the right to spew their toxic beliefs.

    The left used to understand that the only way to secure all of our speech was to defend the vilest of speech. Once you start adding asterisks, the toothpaste is out of the tube.

    The line you draw when it comes to speech is a very simple one: Violence. Endorsing, promoting or encouraging violence is illegal and should be (which does beg the question of how CNN stays on the air). Anything else… bring it on.

    Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.



    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/08/29/nolte-leftists-and-media-cheer-as-mega-corporations-strip-away-free-speech-rights/
    Most people think as they are trained to think, and most people make a majority.

  2. #2
    Proffessional Hickerbilly
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SpearBrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    American of German decent
    Ancestry
    Bavaria/Switzerland
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Central
    Gender
    Age
    53
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Kunstschmiede
    Politics
    Self-Reliance
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    4,573
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,794
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,310
    Thanked in
    608 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Huginn ok Muninn View Post
    The lazy conservative argument is that “a corporation has every right to run itself as it pleases.” In a perfect world, yes. But conservatives should also oppose monopolies when a corporation becomes so large, overwhelming and necessary that you have no place else to go. How many websites would be lost without the ability to promote its posts on Facebook or Twitter?
    This is exactly where "conservatism" fails. Monopolies only exist because governments allow them to. This is also why I no longer consider myself "conservative", I don't want to "conserve" the current government, and who would if they really thought about.
    Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 12th, 2017 @ 07:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    Silesia Silesia
    Gender
    Posts
    853
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    "Free Speech" has always been a phantasmagoria.

    Orwell somewhere remarked -- he was referring especially to Britain -- that it was safe to give the British "spree speech", because almost all of them would not grasp what they were talking about.

    That means, the other way around: as soon as people do grasp what they talk about, it becomes "unsafe" and must be cut underneath.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Tuesday, October 31st, 2017 @ 10:26 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    British Isles
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Politics
    Nationalism
    Religion
    Folkish Pantheism/Stoicism
    Posts
    48
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Leftists want safe spaces for themselves, but never for others.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 12:16 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    507
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    260
    Thanked in
    143 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SpearBrave View Post
    This is exactly where "conservatism" fails. Monopolies only exist because governments allow them to. This is also why I no longer consider myself "conservative", I don't want to "conserve" the current government, and who would if they really thought about.
    A pure monopoly would only exist, if it is ordained by the government. Examples being telecommunication and electricity companies in some countries or the water works in many cities. Other players do face legal barriers to entry there.

    There is however market leaders on certain products or services. Here in SA this would for example be SAB, which is the main supplier of beer.
    They dominate the market, but others can relatively freely compete with them.

    Concerning visibility on the internet, google would be such a firm. This is where people find their information with respective search terms.

    As with the websites it's the hosting providers that may deny service and will argue with their terms and conditions. Likely reason is however threat of boycott by other role-players.

    In Stormfront's case it's a dispute over the domain name which has been revoked. Personally I believe they can and will get that back after some legal egg dancing on the issue. The step by the providers also shows how nervous our enemies have become over perceived "growth of the right". I'm not that optimistic, but the fact that many people don't accept the New lefts PC norms anymore, probably makes leftist elites highly anxious fearing the loss of their power.

  6. #6
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Norman Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Ancestry
    Anglo-Norman & German
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    222
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    53
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    146
    Thanked in
    59 Posts
    What you perceive as a monopoly is not really a monopoly but a dominant market position and it doesn't exist because of the government. It exists because of the value people ascribe to those products. For example, 65% of the world uses Google as a search engine. But Google is not the only existing search engine you can use. There was a point not that long ago when you could easily divide people between those that used Google, Yahoo, Ask Jeeves and AltaVista. Obviously, Google set itself aside from other search engines throughout the years (simple, quick, easy to use), and became a media empire, capable of buying off competitors. But there is literally no law preventing anyone else from creating their own search engines or social media channels.

    Whatsmore, anyone who tries to abuse a dominant market position is eventually going to lose that position. Google has made a few moves that angered its consumers off, which helps other search engines to thrive. For example, DuckDuckGo has become an alternative search engine which doesn't track its users, doesn't share search queries with other sites, doesn't store search histories or any of their computer or location information - things that many other search engines do to boost their advertising efforts. So all nationalists or conservatives need to do it organise themselves and either create or move to a different product. As someone mentioned, if tomorrow all of them migrated from Google or any other company, the change would have an impact. It's not as though you wouldn't have a market for something else. But there needs to be clear demand, a mass mobilisation.

    Giving the government power over private companies is not going to lead to companies being more indiscriminate or objective, quite on the contrary. Government regulation would mean one more sector the government can control - then you would really have a monopoly, which the government would use in order to remove any critical statements whatsoever. You get the equivalent of communist national TV, which only offers one side of the story.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Theunissen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 12:16 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    North Western Europe
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    State
    Transvaal Transvaal
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Posts
    507
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    260
    Thanked in
    143 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Pride View Post
    What you perceive as a monopoly is not really a monopoly but a dominant market position and it doesn't exist because of the government. It exists because of the value people ascribe to those products. For example, 65% of the world uses Google as a search engine. But Google is not the only existing search engine you can use. There was a point not that long ago when you could easily divide people between those that used Google, Yahoo, Ask Jeeves and AltaVista. Obviously, Google set itself aside from other search engines throughout the years (simple, quick, easy to use), and became a media empire, capable of buying off ...
    The search engine market would be oligopolistic with google being the market leader, at least for the anglo-phone world I'd assume.

    It's not really a valuation people did on google as a product (although I'd say it at least suffices technically), it's pure word of mouth (same applies to facebook). There is still a real world outside the internet and people talk to each other in real time face to face. I was introduced to google in an internet cafe by a friend, asking for what I could use to search (forgot what it was).

    Google did do a sufficient job so far, but then South Africa isn't that censored on a lot of pesky subjects. The search engine ranking could be manipulated through SEO, but I think it still delivered relevant results.

    Now however it seems they will be twitching the results to be more PC and indeed this may mean that people will drop google for other providers.

  8. #8
    Proffessional Hickerbilly
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SpearBrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    American of German decent
    Ancestry
    Bavaria/Switzerland
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Central
    Gender
    Age
    53
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Kunstschmiede
    Politics
    Self-Reliance
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    4,573
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,794
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,310
    Thanked in
    608 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Pride View Post
    What you perceive as a monopoly is not really a monopoly but a dominant market position and it doesn't exist because of the government. It exists because of the value people ascribe to those products. For example, 65% of the world uses Google as a search engine. But Google is not the only existing search engine you can use. There was a point not that long ago when you could easily divide people between those that used Google, Yahoo, Ask Jeeves and AltaVista. Obviously, Google set itself aside from other search engines throughout the years (simple, quick, easy to use), and became a media empire, capable of buying off competitors. But there is literally no law preventing anyone else from creating their own search engines or social media channels.
    We are not just talking search engines and web browsers here. Those companies are fueled by advertising dollars. They do what ever their customers say, that is how consumerism works. Yes, some of these companies are monopolies such as Walmart, ever been to small town where there is a Walmart, all other retail shops close. They use lobby power to get better deals and trade deals with China so that smaller companies cannot compete. The people in turn think they are getting "lower prices everyday" when in fact they are getting lower quality everyday. Walmart is just one example.

    Just listen to the lyrics
    Walmart Killed The Country Store - Reverend Peyton's Big Damn Band


    Americans have essentially consumed their way out of a decent living.


    Giving the government power over private companies is not going to lead to companies being more indiscriminate or objective, quite on the contrary. Government regulation would mean one more sector the government can control - then you would really have a monopoly, which the government would use in order to remove any critical statements whatsoever. You get the equivalent of communist national TV, which only offers one side of the story.
    The current system is not really a issue of government control, as much as it is of corporations controlling the government, at least that is how it is here in the US. Politicians are bought and paid for by the lobbyist.
    Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, March 22nd, 2017, 03:21 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Tuesday, September 6th, 2016, 07:45 PM
  3. How The Battle For Free Speech Was Won: Canada Ends Internet 'Hate Speech' Ban
    By Nachtengel in forum Articles & Current Affairs
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Sunday, July 1st, 2012, 11:17 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •