Facebook Removes Interview By Lara Trump For Including The “Voice Of Donald Trump” – Thelegaltorts

The Case For Internet Originalism – JONATHAN TURLEY

Recently, Senator Bernie Sanders raised concerns about Donald Trump’s ban on Twitter as an attack on freedom of expression by corporate censors. It didn’t seem to have any impact on big tech. Facebook removed a video of Lara Trump’s interview with her father-in-law and former president. The company said it would censor any content “in the voice of Donald Trump”. It appears that Trump has achieved Voldemort status on social media and is now “the one who must not be heard”.

The otherwise cheerful note began with “Hello everyone” and then read, “In accordance with the block we placed on Donald Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts, additional content posted in Donald Trump’s voice will be removed and lead to additional restrictions on the accounts. ”

The move is an obvious attack on freedom of expression, including political speech.

In particular, he could talk about the Yankees, but the posting would be censored as the team was discussed with the voice of Donald Trump. It is not his view, but Trump himself that is canceled by the company. Presumably, however, Lara Trump could sit next to Trump and let him whisper his views in her ear. She could then express his views with Lara’s voice rather than Donald Trump.

As we discussed earlier, the Democrats have abandoned long-standing values ​​of free speech in favor of corporate censorship. You clearly have a different “comfort zone” than Sanders. What worries many democratic members is the ability of people to speak freely on these platforms and to spread what they see as “disinformation”.

When Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey came before the Senate to apologize for blocking Hunter Biden’s pre-election story as a mistake, the Senators pushed him and other big tech executives to be more censored.

At that hearing, members such as Senator Mazie Hirono (D., HI) urged witnesses such as Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey to reassure Trump still unable to speak on their platforms, “What are you two willing to do about Donald Trump’s use.” to do? of your platforms after he ceases to be president, will he still be considered up-to-date and can he continue to use your platforms to spread misinformation? “

Rather than addressing the dangers of such news censorship, Senator Chris Coons urged Dorsey to expand the categories of censored material to prevent people from sharing what he sees as “climate denial.” Likewise, Senator Richard Blumenthal seemed to be taking the opposite meaning from Twitter, admitting that it was wrong to censor the Biden story. Blumenthal said he was “concerned that your two companies are actually falling behind or pulling back, that you are not taking action against dangerous disinformation”. Accordingly, he asked for an answer to this question:

“Will you commit to the same kind of solid game books for changing content, including fact checking, labeling, reducing the spread of misinformation, and other steps in the upcoming election, even for politicians in the upcoming runoff?”

“Robust content change” has a certain appeal, like a kind of software upgrade. It is not a content change. It’s censorship. If our representatives want to crack down on freedom of expression, they should admit that they are campaigning for censorship.

Now, “robust content change” involves censoring Donald Trump’s voice. It’s not just censorship, it’s pointless. These companies are trying to erase unpopular numbers, but doing so only deepens the divisions and anger in our country. However, the media are largely either supportive or tacit in the face of this corporate regulation of political speech.

Facebook’s move could reinforce calls for an amendment to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Big Tech once made a name for itself as the equivalent of the phone company and therefore, as a neutral provider of communication forums, sought protection so that people can voluntarily connect and interact. It then began to engage in expanding, contradicting acts of censorship. Nevertheless, it wants to remain protected as if it were neutral, even though it is actively changing the content. We would never allow a telephone company operator to drop off a call to say that the company does not approve of a statement that has just been made, or to cut off the line for those who do not issue approved positions.

That’s why I call myself an “internet originalist”. True neutrality leaves it up to the individual to decide who to read, watch or talk to in the media. You leave it up to people to choose whose voices are heard.

Like this:

To like Loading…