The limousine liberal powers-that-be at Google seem determined to force the government to declare the search engine a public utility and regulate it to keep it from censoring free speech. Latest case in point: Google banned a conservative PAC for life (warning that if they tried to open accounts under any other name, those would be banned, too) for the “crime” of running a 10-second ad opposing letting babies die.
Think I’m soft-pedaling it and that the ad must’ve really been incendiary, slanderous or misleading? Watch it yourself and be agog at Google.
Of course, Google isn’t the only tech giant that believes in free speech only up to a point (usually, the point where you criticize the left.) Facebook just announced permanent suspensions of several right-wing “extremists” for allegedly promoting hate and violence.
While I have no sympathy for white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups, who, as President Trump said, should be condemned totally – and I agree that some of the people banned engage in irresponsible rhetoric – silencing speech should always be a last resort. The Founders gave us the First Amendment to protect unpopular political speech (popular, uncontroversial speech needs no protection), a fact that too many young Americans are no longer learning. They believed that the proper response to bad ideas was good ideas, and the remedy for poor speech was more speech, not censorship.
Free and open debate exposes bad speech. Censorship merely drives it underground. It also empowers the censors, who get to decide what constitutes speech deserving of silencing (and it always eventually works around to including speech that criticizes the censors.)
Also worth noting with appropriately raised eyebrows and head-scratches: the so-called “right-wing” extremists banned by Facebook include the Rev. Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam. I agree that his racist and anti-Semitic speech is incredibly offensive, but since when is Farrakhan considered a conservative?
Blogger Allahpundit at HotAir.com has an interesting theory for why Farrakhan is suddenly being retroactively classified as a “right-winger”: it serves as cover against accusations from the right that they only deplatform right-wingers, while keeping the left from getting angry that they sacrificed one left-wing extremist to keep up a veneer of impartiality.