Why Do We Put Up With Social Media’s ‘Censorship Without Due Process’?

The line that comes to mind when Howard Beale speaks to his people in the 1976 traditional film” Network” is the one you most likely recalls. He tells them to go to their windows, stick their heads out, and yell these thoughts to the nation:” If you are old enough to remember this movie, go to your windows, stick your head out, and yell them this,” you most likely recalls.

” I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more.”

Well, I had my Howard Beale time yesterday when I posted a link on LinkedIn to a study by epidemiology and McCullough Foundation superintendent Nicolas Hulscher that was highly conclusive. It is thought that the mRNA Covid vaccine severely impairs a woman’s ability to produce biological cells.

One of the studies, which focused on a group of animals, found a 66 % decrease in “primordial cells, the basic chicken source for potential fertility.” Even more alarming was a subsequent study of 1.3 million Czech ladies who had been tested by Hulscher, who had rated them. According to that research, human females had a 33 % decrease in their egg count, and the decline was irreversible.

A one-third decline in the human baby price around the world could be fatal for all of us, according to a medical technology brilliance or ace demographer. And if that’s the case, don’t everyone be able to learn the research and draw their own conclusions about their reliability? &nbsp,

Not in accordance with Linked In, which flagged that article as “false or misleading.” I was given the option to challenge the judges ‘ choice. I did it, especially asking that I know the offending section in the post and give a justification in writing for why it was deemed so unpleasant to support censoring it.

Next, I looked up the contact information for the company’s executive authority on the website of Linked In. Ryan Rolansky, who is portrayed as providing “leadership” for Linked In, was the only people I could find for whatever reason.

Here’s what I texted Rolansky, &nbsp:

A blog I posted earlier today, which you claimed contained “false or deceptive information,” has been censored by your company. However, it does not appear anywhere in your see to provide specific instances of false or misleading data. Without proper process, this is true censorship.

I request that you identify the specific LinkedIn staff who made this choice and then ask them to write me a letter outlining the justification for their decision to judge my post.

No explanation has been timely from Rolansky or anyone else at Linked In, and we all know that none will be, as a result of them ignoring my demands or offering cliches that are only superficial and irrelevant. We all know that none will be.

What, then, does Howard Beale have to do with any of this? Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, all of the Big Tech social media companies are protected by special safety that makes it possible for them to delete everything without having to exclusively reveal why they did it. Additionally, because of that delivery, social media can avoid legal repercussions that are typical in traditional print and broadcast advertising.

Nothing less than a flurry of legal offenses is permitted under this law. Every American is guaranteed the First Amendment’s right to free speech, with the exception of, as noted by the Supreme Court, shouting” Fire!” “in a packed theater that is not actually burning, inciting crowd murder, or advocating crime,”

You may assume that LinkedIn and other Big Tech social media censors may at least give their censorship victims an opportunity to discuss the offensive passages and any changes the publisher might consent to in order to keep publishing, if only out of common morality and/or business sense.

This would be especially important when the issue is involving public health issues like the COVID-19 crisis and the mRNA vaccines that federal officials required. And this phrase is included in Linked In’s published warning against posting “false or misleading information”:

Do not reveal information that contradicts authoritative public health organizations and public health authorities, including misleading information about the safety or efficacy of vaccinations or medical procedures.

In other words, keep your mouth shut, regardless of whether you are a famous scholar, a well-known health professional, or just a Joe Blow Citizen. Don’t dare to question everything our public wellbeing Guardians are instructing you to do. &nbsp,

Because of the benefits, including the White House’s energetic support during the prior administration, the government and Big Tech interpersonal advertising can get away with this.

Biden Time: The Cloward-Piven Strategy’s Ultimate Application and Utmostly Repetitive Failure

The House Judiciary Committee’s Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government’s May 2024 report exposes in detail how the Biden administration coerced Big Tech social media to judge dissented political opinions, including those who were critical of the Covid crisis and the immediate and long-term results of the mRNA vaccination.

The Biden White House’s “inside-the-scenes efforts to censor political opponents and dissident views are exposed in the report. For instance, the White House emailed Twitter ( now X ) employees demanding that a Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. tweet be “removed ASAP.” on the third day of the Biden Administration. The Biden White House instructed Twitter to also “keep an eye out for tweets that fall in this same genre” in the same email. ‘” &nbsp,

Millions of Americans have gone through the same level of censorship. Without the revision of Section 230, it has been assumed for years that nothing could be done to stop the Big Tech social media censorship. Although there are efforts being made, there isn’t much progress in Congress.

What if the same number of Americans banded together, though? Initial questions posed the possibility of some kind of class-action litigation. I spoke with the head of one of the most influential and well-known advocates for government transparency, and I inquired about this. ” Probably not,” he replied.

Okay, maybe the class-action approach is inconvenient, but we Americans have a right to defend our First Amendment right to free speech.

Please share your thoughts in the comments section because there are many readers who are a heck of a lot smarter than I am about these things. &nbsp,

Help us reclaim our speech rights and stop Big Tech censorship. Use the promo code FIGHT to get 60 % off your membership when you sign up for PJ Media VIP.

Source credit