?

Answer to Censorship: Calling for an Internet Bill of Rights


Viva la Revolucion!

1776. The year 13 British Colonies expressed their sheer disgust at a distant tyrant who made their lives a literal hell. Taxing without representation to finance some distant lands growth, and forbidden to write or say anything that criticizes the rule of the homeland, colonists were forced to recognize The Church of England as the official religious expression and no other in these colonies. Colonists began to ask “Why should we have to bow down to some far off ruler who never set foot on these shores? The kids will not know who this person is yet they will have to bow down?” Then they said enough is enough.

Stemming from this revolution is a document detailing what these citizens rights will be and that no government, domestic or foreign, can take away. The Founding Fathers called it The Bill of Rights. Ten amendments ensuring the inalienable freedoms of these American citizens.

These philosophical ideas state that an American citizen has the right to say what they want, worship how they want, gather however they want, write what they want, and have the right to defend those rights. They are among the top principles that the Founding Fathers believed were given. They believed these rights are beyond what government and legislation can give, and none of these entities can take them away.

Fast forward to 2018

Rather than some far off distant ruler infringing upon citizens, there is now a different form of tyranny being perpetrated. These tyrants, as some would say, do not wear crowns or drink from goblets like a scene from Game of Thrones. These people are nothing more than suit wearing, sneaker donning, ironic thick-rimmed glasses wearing programmers who do not like what people are saying and are executing individuals off of digital platforms.

These folks who run giant technology firms are specifically targeting various individuals who espouse views that are culturally unpopular from the ideological perspective of these tech companies; in so doing, they are specifically casting out such folks to prevent them from being able to use their platforms. They are ultimately attempting to take out their livelihood. Private companies who claim to espouse neutrality in thought, and who communicate notions that they are not publishing companies have hypocritically become publishing companies as they allow irrelevant advertisements, ban people from posting, or bury content to keep them from being seen.

Censorship Today, Communism Tomorrow

Such videos from PragerU, Diamond and Silk, Fox News, Owen Benjamin, and Allie Stuckey have all received either suspension or were flagged for “community guideline violations.” Allie Stuckey’s amazing breakdown on the need for good masculinity was removed from Facebook as “hate speech.” Stefan Molyneux received two strikes on his YouTube channel for no reason other than the vague community guideline violation, whatever that means.

Comedian Owen Benjamin and shock reporter Milo Yiannopoulos are banned permanently. Alex Jones has been de-platformed off all avenues such as Facebook, Spotify, Apple iTunes, and YouTube. Meanwhile, other outlets are making the trending lists; The Young Turks, Feminist Frequency, Everyday Feminism, MSNBC, Vox, Salon (who published 3 articles attempting to normalize pedophilia), and other such publication companies who spout fake news, false findings, and hit pieces against President Trump, conservatives, and the like are all still up.

Perhaps Another Bill of Rights

In light of these behaviors from these companies which are glaring beacons of troubling times, many highly influential people are calling for a digital Bill of Rights. In other words, they are calling for these platforms to be public utilities, thereby ensuring that these banning behaviors and such cannot be instituted. A digital Bill of Rights seems like the necessary next step. If a tech company violates any of these digital Amendments, they can face digital rights violations.

The only problem is since being digital is a global thing, it does intersect international boundaries. With various nations capping Internet use or even monitoring social media traffic, it creates problems for these totalitarian governments like the UK or China. However, if this Bill of Rights ensures that people have the right to use these platforms as they are in public utilities, then their behaviors are human rights violations and should be condemned. This would prohibit these companies from behaving in a very fascistic way as well. Is that not what today’s argument is, no Nazi-like behaviors?

Well, we as a populace would like to equally see pedophile Todd Nickerson plead his case as a virtuous pedophile and Alex Jones rant about tap water turning frogs gay as much as we would enjoy seeing Deanna Lorraine’s content or PragerU’s content. It is our right to see what we want, and Mark Zuckerberg should not control that. As Kanye West would say, “One man shouldn’t have all that power!” Neither should companies.

John Lee / Writer
I am a conservative, Christian Asian who loves God, country, and music. I am proud to be American and want to MAGA!
previous article
Newer Post
next article
Older Post



  1. The key to any communist takeover is to make you demand it. Looking for an Internet Bill of Rights is BEGGING government to manage everything even closer. Do I LIKE being shadowbanned? Nope. Does it affect me emotionally? Yep. Are businesses being affected? Yep. So what happened to the free market? Well, we lost the war, and not to communism in this case, because, unlike China, it's not the government censoring, but people and businesses. SO the choice is clear: demand government intervention into the free market - AGAIN - or let Internet censorship and discrimination roll on. Not an easy choice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This must become a reality. It is long overdue. People must come-around to what "rights' truly mean...what is fair.
    Great Article. Thank you, Culture Connundrum!

    ReplyDelete

no

Name

Email *

Message *