I'm no expert on the US constitution, or on where tyranny of the majority differs from government gagging, but I would think, since Merkel has co-opted Facebook and Twitter to delete any 'troublesome' commentary on immigration, that this IS government gagging, merely delivered by corporate proxy?
Quote: (12-24-2015 08:27 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:
Facebook censored one of Watson's articles. So I thought I'd post that here to broadcast it. So that when anyone does a search for FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP, this will come up in Google.
Watson had written a piece on a refugee raping a Swedish woman. Here is the place where it was yesterday. It's gone now. Apparently, it was removed because Facebook considered anti-migrant posts to be "xenophobic”.
(I also left a comment there but there is no record of that in my Facebook Activity Log, so they're now erasing history.)
Anyway, Watson wrote a story about the censorship at Infowars.com. You can find that here.
***
I've seen liberals on my Facebook page in favor of corporate censorship because it tends to suit their agenda. They make it clear the First Amendment "only applies to the government censoring speech."
I'm not a Constitutional scholar by any means. But it's occurring to me that when you have a country where corporations control most means of communication (i.e. newspapers, Facebook, Twitter), then you've basically sold out the First Amendment to business and/or made it irrelevant.
Is there a way around this? Could a person have sued the old Bell Telephone company, for example, if it had its operators cut off phone calls they deemed as "inappropriate?" Would this, then, apply to social media?
There has to be some precedent here to change things, because the globalist corporate state is only getting more powerful.
"The woman most eager to jump out of her petticoat to assert her rights is the first to jump back into it when threatened with a switching for misusing them,"
-Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary