These people in our government – man, they really love war.

Do you think it’s just on an individual level, they just think war is really fun and cool?

Or do they have some other reason for loving war so much?

And what about internet censorship?

They just really like silencing people, I guess?

RT:

The US House of Representatives has voted for the first time to override President Donald Trump’s veto of a $740 billion annual military spending bill, which he opposed for limiting his ability to bring US troops home.

After aligning with Trump to approve raising the coronavirus stimulus payments to $2,000 per American, the House also voted 322- 87 to override Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a $740 billion military spending bill, which passed both chambers of Congress earlier this month.

Trump objected to the NDAA not addressing his concerns about Section 230 and internet platforms, trying to prevent him from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and including a Democrat proposal to rename US military bases named a century ago after Civil War generals who fought for the Confederacy.

…

Amid media reports that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) planned to hold a vote only on the NDAA override and not the increased payments, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) vowed to hold up the vote and block the Senate from going into recess over the New Year holiday.

It’s a shame that Trump wasn’t fighting with this same vigor throughout his entire presidency, frankly.

But hey, who knows – maybe it never would have made any difference.

Maybe this whole thing was doomed from the start.

I don’t want to hear about CDA Section 230 anymore.

But here I am, hearing about it.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is now saying that he has a plan to “move forward with an FCC rulemaking to clarify the meaning of Section 230.”

I intend to move forward with an @FCC rulemaking to clarify the meaning of #Section230.

Read my full statement below. pic.twitter.com/LhUz5XMdSC

— Ajit Pai (@AjitPaiFCC) October 15, 2020

For those who may not know: you should know. But as a reminder: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects “platforms” from legal liability for what is posted on their sites by users. Basically, a “platform” is differentiated from a “publisher,” because they are not curating the content that is posted on their site. This status as “platform” protects them from legal liability for the content posted on their sites.

What that means in real life is this: Nick Sandmann was able to successfully sue CNN because CNN allowed their journalists to attack and defame him as a racist on their TV channel.

If you’ll recall, there must have been a billion liberal journalists on Twitter making the same defamatory claims that CNN made, but Twitter was never subjected to legal jeopardy for hosting this same material, because they are a “platform” and not a “publisher.” Ironically, the law was created to enable freedom of speech and prevent the chilling effect of websites fearing legal problems because of their users.

This is the current plan of the Republicans: establish that Twitter is no longer a “platform” and instead a “publisher” because they’ve made so many editorial decisions by banning all of these people that they’ve banned. If they lost their status as a platform under Section 230, the plan goes, they would get hit with X number of defamation lawsuits, which would ultimately collapse the company.

Then, the theory goes, they would be replaced by a different company, which would have different rules about the way it moderated content, and there would be freedom again.

I think this is a lunatic plan.

Firstly, it obviously isn’t going to work. There is too much money involved. Secondly, Section 230 can’t be clarified.

There is no way to implement hard and fast rules for banning across the entire internet. The only thing you could do is say, “no one can ban anyone.” But that would mean that say, the Gamer Uprising forum would lose its 230 status for banning annoying neo-Nazis who ruin threads with edgy anti-social crap.

If you didn’t say “no one can ever be banned for content,” then what exactly would change? Twitter and the rest would just figure out ways to Jew whatever rules you came up with.

Frankly, it’s just a nonstarter and a waste of time.

I personally believe that even without an act of Congress, you could add the big tech companies – namely, Facebook, Twitter and Google – to the provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which guarantees universal service for common carriers.

Right now, based on the 1996 Act, no telephone company can listen in on your calls and cut your service if you say the n-word. Even if you say the n-word in public, they cannot cut your phone line, because you are guaranteed service of the common carrier.

In 1996, we were still using AOL or Compuserve dial-up internet, that went over a standard phone line. Shortly thereafter however, in the early 00s, broadband internet became a standard, using either a DSL or a cable line. According to the FCC website, they now consider broadband internet something that should have “universal service.” They added that using their own system of rules, without input from Congress, based on the 1996 Act. (As far as the FCC’s ability to make rules: Congress never voted on Net Neutrality, which was a massive overhaul of the way the internet works by the Obama Administration.)

So, it is my contention that it is the Telecommunications Act, and not the Communications Decency Act, that Pai needs to clarify. Obviously, a judge is going to block him if he says that the big three tech companies are now going to be regulated as common carrier communications channels on par with phone lines, but a clarification of CDA 230 would also be blocked by judges.

I think that the argument can be made that Facebook and Twitter are necessary services in the same way that a phone line was a necessary service in the last century. They are used just as widely as phones were used, and are in fact more important now than phones ever were, for people’s personal and professional lives. They are also obviously natural monopolies.

If you’re going to go to the Supreme Court to try to prevent tech censorship without an act from Congress, this is the way to go, no question. Stating that a monopoly communications website like Facebook or Twitter is a communications service which should be universal, in the same way that a road or the mail is universal, is most likely to come to the outcome we want.

This is also not a direct attack on the companies themselves, in the way that undermining CDA 230 is. Yes, these companies have a political agenda, and there are a lot of Jews involved, but if you can set up your attack in such a way that the other side conceding doesn’t cost them any money (and will in fact make them money), then you’re going to get a whole lot less pushback.

What I’ve laid out here is very similar to what is being argued for by Matthew Prince of Cloudflare. He banned me from his service. I was the first site he’d ever banned, and to this day, there are only two sites he’s ever banned (the second being 8chan). When he banned me, he said that he did it to start a conversation. This was in part just bullshit, but he did follow through. His position was that it is not his job to decide what content should be banned, and he said that the situation should be the same as it is with the phone company. He said that banning me from Cloudflare was no different than if Ma Bell had listened in on my phone conversation and banned me because they didn’t like what I said.

Hilariously, after I was banned, Prince could no longer use the “we don’t ban anyone, ever” excuse when harassed by copyright trolls, and immediately got majorly sued.

After the judge allowed the fact that I was banned to be entered as evidence, Prince ended up being forced to settle, and has continued to be sued over and over again for copyright. I’m glad that banning me cost him however many tens of millions of dollars, but ultimately, it cost me in relative terms a lot more than it cost him. My biggest single expense right now comes from paying for the services I have to use to replace Cloudflare. (People ask me how much, but I never answer because I will just be accused of lying. By the way, please remember to donate.)

If these companies were not either run by Jews or under immense pressure from Jews, none of them would want to censor people, as it makes zero financial sense. Getting sued for copyright is the least of it – as we’ve seen, once you start banning, you are then morally responsible for everything you don’t ban. I pointed out after being banned by Cloudflare that they also host ISIS terrorist sites and pedophile websites that have boards discussing how to target children for sex. If they banned me because I was just too immoral, then the fact that they allow ISIS and pedophiles means that they approve of their morality.

Obviously, Jews don’t care about ISIS or pedophilia, but after Twitter and Facebook started banning, the Jews absolutely exploited the situation, saying that if they banned “Nazis,” then it must mean that they approve of everything they’re not banning. (Which is actually a completely sound argument.) That does tie back to the CDC 230 thing.

After the fiasco of agreeing to ban me, Prince went to meet with lawmakers about an agenda to transfer content regulation from the industry to the government, but as I understand it, they didn’t show much interest. I’m not sure to what extent he is still involved in pushing for regulation, but he would be a very good person for Trump to call on here.

The other way for things to go is for Congress to simply pass a law saying that internet monopolies must respect the First Amendment, in every case. But as we well know, the Congress is totally bought off, and there is zero chance that the current Congress, even if we win big in November, would be willing to do this. We would need to start replacing them through the primary system, which we will not have an opportunity to do until 2022.

I was locked out my account for twelve hours for stating something that was a standard line in Trump's 2016 rallies.

Where is the GOP?

Silent. Hiding under their desks.

This is why we lose.

— Lauren Witzke (@LaurenWitzkeDE) October 11, 2020

Current Republicans aren’t going to do anything. They are bought and paid for.

Right now, my impression is that if we get through this election and Trump stays in office, a lot of good things we didn’t expect to happen are going to start happening. I don’t think they will outweigh the bad things that we know are going to happen. But there will be things to be excited about, and things to look forward to.

In a new chapter of the ongoing saga of conservative pundits attempting to justify censorship as the internet is cleansed of everyone who does not fit into the controlled opposition mold, the unbelievable shill Charlie Kirk, the head of Turning Point USA, has jumped in with some libertarian nonsense about government contracts.

RT if you believe it is time for @realDonaldTrump to sign an executive order banning tech companies from getting federal contracts due to viewpoint discrimination

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) May 5, 2019

This is absolutely a complete non-starter. I don’t know how many federal contracts social media companies get – I don’t know if they even get any, beyond probably some advertisement deals – but I do know that they will sacrifice those contracts to be able to censor.

What Kirk is doing is coming out and trying to get in front of a conservative push to classify the big social media companies as common carriers – that is, public utilities – which would force them to provide universal service.

Tiana Lowe, a journalist trained in cuckservative shilling by the National Review and a juicy little strumpet, has been leading the charge against free speech online. Lowe recently claimed that the people complaining about censorship have no plan to fix the problem.

This is simply a lie, and Charlie Kirk is propagating that lie by coming up with a retarded fake solution as if there isn’t already an easy and obvious solution that everyone is already demanding.

Other controlled opposition shills are following Ted Cruz and saying that Twitter and Facebook should lose their CDA 230 “platform” status and be treated instead as “publishers,” which would mean they could be held legally responsible for everything that gets posted on their site, which would theoretically make it impossible for them to function and force them to go back to allowing freedom of speech. However, in practice, if they lost CDA 230 publisher status, the government would just create some new status for them that removed their responsibility for content.

The only solution is the obvious solution that everyone who isn’t a shill is calling for: classify them as public utilities.

The Communications Act of 1934 included a provision for “universal service” for telephone lines, meaning everyone in the country was guaranteed access to a telephone line. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded universal service protections to broadband internet, classifying it as a common carrier.

Both of these laws involved regulating private companies by telling them they were required to provide service to everyone. It is illegal for a private company to deny you a telephone line or broadband internet if they are capable of providing it to you. They cannot say “we think you’re a racist so we’re not going to serve you.”

And yet, I have not seen any of these libertarians, who are arguing that it would violate “values and principles” for the government to regulate internet companies, call for the communications acts of 1934 and 1996 to be repealed. (Nor am I aware of any kind of negative “socialist” effects having resulted from these laws.)

Furthermore, I have not heard any of them call for the government to repeal laws that require private utility companies to provide electricity, water and heating to every member of society, let alone call for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act, which is the most grievous violation of freedom of association in all of American legislative history.

Libertarianism is almost always selectively used as a tactic to allow the government to skirt its regulatory responsibilities by claiming a private company has a right to do whatever they want.

We have a government that is supposed to make laws to protect the wellbeing and freedom of the people. The purpose of new laws is to deal with the changes in society. If society didn’t change, then you would never need to make new laws, because after founding a country, you would quickly get to a point where you already had all the laws you need.

Right now, we need laws to protect our First Amendment, as we are experiencing a de facto removal of our rights to free speech by the tech oligopoly.

It is a self-evident fact that the internet is a tool that is much more necessary for participating in modern life than the telephone ever was. Right now, we have laws that guarantee access to a telephone landline, but none that guarantee access to Facebook, even though far more communication takes place on Facebook than over a landline telephone.

And we are most assuredly not a more libertarian society than we were in 1934. The government has never in history been more involved in the life of the average citizen.

The Daily Stormer has been banned from the following services:

• PayPal
• Facebook
• Twitter
• YouTube
• Cloudflare
• Dozens of web hosts
• Dozens of domain registrars
• Every payment processor

And many more that I can’t remember right now.

I have never done anything illegal on this website. I have never been charged with a crime for anything I did on this website. I have never been accused of doing anything illegal on this website. All I have ever done is engage in Constitutionally-protected free speech.

My almost complete removal from the entire internet was cheered on by liberals, who were using the same libertarian arguments that conservatives are now using to try to justify why they don’t think tech companies should be regulated: “A private company can do whatever it wants to anyone.”

Meanwhile, the same people who claimed that massive multinational corporations can do whatever they want to do to a political dissident were cheering the government on as small, family-run Christian cake makers were being run out of business for refusing to bake homosexual cakes.

If you actually wanted to get down into the weeds with these libertarians and their ideology – I personally have no interest in doing so – they are in fact violating their own principles. Whereas a Christian bakery is simply a space that has been rented out, these tech companies rely on the internet, the development of which was paid for by the taxpayer. They also use broadband infrastructure, much of which was paid for by the taxpayer. So the argument for regulating them is much stronger than the argument for various “Civil Rights” legislation.

The only reason that anyone would be against the government regulating the tech industry is that they want to silence political dissidents. That is the case whether the argument is being made by liberals who openly oppose the First Amendment, or conservative shills like Charlie Kirk and Tiana Lowe who concern troll about “socialism.”