• Today’s attacks on the First Amendment (Free Speech) are being carried out by a “triple threat” tag-team of institutions:

#1) Tech giants – carrying out the mechanics of censorship, shadow banning, “doubt interruptions” and other techniques.
#2) Establishment media – Tasked with promoting the lynch mob mentality of hysteria and hatred which is translated into widespread calls for silencing whatever voices they don’t like.
#3) Third party fact-checkers and moderators – These groups, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, Politifact, etc., are given the task of flagging all “undesirable” political speech (from their agenda) as “hate speech,” creating the justification for tech giants to ban or deplatform such accounts without having to accept internal organizational responsibility for discriminating against selected targets.
These three “fronts” conspire to attack, defame and deplatform originators of certain types of speech.

• We are now faced with a kind of perfect storm in America—a “free speech apocalypse”—where all the institutions that once called for protections of the freedom of expression are now actively conspiring to exterminate it. This coordinated attack on free speech is now taking place in plain view. The agenda is not hidden, nor is it even debatable that this is taking place. The goal is the complete abolition of all speech that globalist tech giants wish to eliminate, and these efforts have been deliberately accelerated as the 2018 mid-term elections approach, carrying out what can only be called an extreme example of election interference and a plot to defraud the United States of America from their right to free speech beyond the globalist agenda.

• For example, it’s blatantly obvious that Google, Facebook, YouTube, CNN and even the ACLU are all conspiring to defraud the United States of America by silencing voices, en masse, in the run up to a critical election that may decide the fate of our nation.

• The United States Congress must act. New laws must be passed and enforced that invoke the authority of the federal government to prevent dominant online platforms, which have become communication monopolies.

• Censorship by tech giants is an assault on the right to exist in an online-dominated society.

• The predominant argument of pro-censorship advocates largely consists of claiming that because Google, Facebook, etc., are private corporations, they can therefore engage in discriminatory censorship of any kind they wish, without restraint or regulatory oversight. This argument collapses when seen in the context of the broad recognition that participation in dominant online platforms has become essential for personal, social, and professional interactions in the modern world.

• Just as citizens of fifty years ago could not meaningfully participate in society without phone or electricity service, today’s citizens cannot meaningfully participate in the modern world without an online presence, expressed through the dominant online communications platforms such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, and YouTube.

• Dominant online platforms have become essential services for meaningful participation in modern society.

• This is further underscored by the fact that an individual’s online presence exerts forceful and lasting influence on their personal and social life, professional life, career opportunities and freedom of expression, including the freedom to engage in political debate that may influence others in elections.

• To be shadow banned by Facebook or YouTube today is as destructive to an individual’s quality of life as being surreptitiously cut off from phone and electricity services in the 1970s…. Yet no reasonable person would argue today that electricity companies, even though they are private corporations, should have to right to cut off electricity from targeted customers because the company disagrees with their politics. Similarly, internet service providers (ISPs) don’t cut off customers who use their services, even when those services are conduits for forms of expression with which the ISP may vehemently disagree.

• In a society that has roundly rejected the idea that private businesses can discriminate against people based on the color of their skin, established media giants are openly demanding that private businesses now discriminate against people based on the color of their ideas.

• Because of the online nature of modern life, the censorship of individuals on the dominant online platforms of open expression is an attack on their very right to participate in society. No modern person can meaningfully participate in modern social and professional interactions without an online presence on one or more social media platforms. They have become “essential services” for modern life, making them just as critical to modern survival as electricity, housing or phone service.

• The tech giants now discriminating against individuals based on the color of their ideas— companies like Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter—have all pursued a central deception that has only now been exposed.

• That deception consists of these companies launching under the false pretense of being “open platforms” that welcomed free speech from nearly anyone…. Once their dominant market position was achieved, they then started banning individuals based on the content of their ideas, deeply violating the original promise and pretense of the online service.

• Online censorship is de facto denial of the right to exist in an interconnected world. These dominant internet gatekeepers enjoy market share dominance of 80% or better, in their respective categories, meaning that both content creators and content consumers have no reasonable alternative destinations from which to choose…. Through this deception, the dominant internet gatekeepers have become the de facto providers of essential infrastructure through which modern citizens carry out their personal and professional lives. To deny individuals their right to exist in modern society—by shadow banning, deplatforming, or artificially throttling their online expression—is to violate an individual’s pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness…. It is to deny their very right to exist in modern society.

• Dominant online platforms have become the de facto providers of essential infrastructure through which modern citizens carry out their personal and professional lives. To maliciously censor those individuals due to the color of their speech is to deny them the right to meaningfully participate in modern society…. Because of the necessity of participation in the online world in order to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in a tech-driven society, the censorship of an individual or organization by internet gatekeepers is a de facto act of defamation against that individual or organization.

• It isn’t just political speech that’s targeted, either; it’s also speech about natural health and disease prevention…. Facebook’s baseless censorship of natural health-related accounts experienced a recent uptick when Facebook banned dozens of health-oriented accounts reaching an estimated 40 million followers. As reported by Phillip Schneider at Natural Blaze (https://www. naturalblaze.com/2018/07/facebook-purges-over-80-accounts-sweeping-attack-alterna- tive-media.html), the Facebook purge of natural health websites included:
  • Collectively Conscious (915K followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018 12
  • Healthy Food House (3.4M followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018
  • Natural Cures Not Medicine (2.3M followers) – Deleted on June 11th, 2018
  • Health Awareness (2.5M followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018
  • I Want to Be 100% Organic (700K followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018
  • Organic Health (230K followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018
  • Natural Cures From Food (120K followers) – Deleted on June 13th, 2018
  • Conscious Life News (1.1M follower) – Deleted on June 5th, 2018

… and dozens more. It is possible that some of these accounts may have been restored, but the fact that they were banned in the first place demonstrates the important point here.

• Because society has shifted away from communications in the physical world (U.S. Postal Service mail, billboards, etc.) and moved almost entirely to electronic communications and online posting, the very existence of a business, organization, or even a personal reputation depends strongly on their ability to participate in dominant online platforms without being subjected to malicious, selective censorship or shadow banning.

• Censorship is the online equivalent of being personally executed; denied the right to exist or participate in an online-connected society.

• The banning of online accounts can destroy an entire business (and it has, provably, in many examples). It can destroy reputations. Most importantly, from the point of view of the [globalist] tech giants, banning targeted accounts can also strongly influence future elections by silencing the speech of those whom Facebook and Google do not want to have a voice.

• Losing control of the narrative means losing control over society. Maintaining monopoly control over cultural narratives is crucial for commanding primary influence over the worldview held by news consumers, whose beliefs, opinions, and “realities” are largely shaped by the news to which they are subjected…. In reality, “news” is the primary conduit through which narratives / stories are implanted into the consciousness of news consumers. These stories shape the way people think, talk, and behave in society. They even shape the way people vote…. The label of “news” is simply the cover story for what might be more accurately called a “national suggestion / influence campaign” which deliberately works to influence public opinion, distort the perception of real-world events, manipulate the minds of viewers and achieve hidden political goals….

• The very fabric of our society is now being deliberately sacrificed by media and tech monopolists in their desperate, destructive quest to regain narrative control at any cost [from the alternative media]…. Control of public narratives is viewed by media monopolists as critical for controlling the masses…. “News” is the label used by media monopolists who pretend to be engaged in a public service when they are actually engaged in public indoctrination and deceptive influence campaigns…. The highest priority of news monopolists is to silence independent, opposing voices that encourage individuals to “snap out” of their numbed, passive acquiescence to mainstream news narratives…. Continued compliance to false mainstream news narratives requires ongoing, repeated indoctrination and information dominance by propagandists.

• In essence, censorship of the independent media is a necessary component of the continuous (but fragile) indoctrination of the news consuming public. [This can be easily disempowered by a technique] called a “pattern interrupt,” and…. [the alternative media] is the key “interruptor” due to both the provocative [truth] of [its] content…. It is precisely this kind of combination of content and delivery that can “snap” people out of a mental slumber.

• Reiterated, it takes constant repetition of disinformation to lull news consumers into a news trance, but it takes just one interrupter to break the spell and jolt people back to their senses. [We who are aligned with factual and spiritual truth can become millions of potent content interrupters of the mainstream media narrative.]

• One of the pillars of the internal justifications for banning political speech is the invocation of “hate speech”…. In essence, anything the [mainstream media] wants to promote is labeled “love” [no matter whether it’s factually true or not, while those who are speaking factual truth to power are labelled as being guilty of “hate speech”]. These labels are arbitrarily assigned based entirely on tribal bias, utterly failing any legitimate test of universal rules or logic.

• Essentially, [those] who run the tech giants of today almost universally believe that all opposition against their agendas is rooted in “hate” and must therefore be silenced…. Thus, the very definition of “hate” defies all attempts at a reasonable definition. It all boils down to the irrefutable realization that “hate speech” is simply any speech which contradicts the shifting narratives of the [mainstream and social media].

• Whoever has the power to define “hate” and use it as justification for censorship has obtained the power to dictate the content of every opinion uttered online…. Thus, the haters have been put in charge of deciding the very definition of hate speech, and they predictably wield that authority as a weapon to punish their political enemies, whom they also hate.

• The purpose of controlling the “news” is to control the narratives that strongly influence the beliefs and actions of news consumers for a multitude of purposes, including shaping the outcome of political elections…. The news establishment’s assertion that they are merely reporting facts without bias is fraudulent and deliberately deceptive.

• “Fake news” is the actual business model of the establishment media monopolists, who knowingly exploit and abuse their positions of news authority to broadcast disinformation and propaganda for the purpose of covert social influence.

• “Hate speech” is a fictitious fabrication invoked by the authoritarian [establishment media monopolists] to silence their targeted political enemies. There is no logically consistent definition of “hate speech” that [anyone] can describe, because no such universal standard exists. Whoever has the power to define “hate” gains the power to dictate the content of every opinion uttered online. Such power, concentrated in the hands of a biased few, is extraordinarily dangerous to any free society.

• Many independent media publishers rely on email newsletters to directly reach their audience via email. However, two of the most prominent email destinations—Gmail and Yahoo Mail—systematically block emails from content sources they don’t like, halting the delivery of such emails to their email users.

• ….Google can exert the power to…. block that publisher’s email newsletters from being delivered to gmail.com users. This is a…. “threat” censorship regime that grants Google an alarming level of control over the delivery of communications across the internet, even to users who have specifically asked to receive such communications (such as email newsletters to which they have subscribed).

• In essence, Gmail is claiming to serve the function of a postal carrier who delivers mail you’ve requested to your mailbox. But during the delivery, Gmail carriers open and read your mail, and if they don’t like what they read, they trash your letter and refuse to deliver it. Google actively and mercilessly pursues this interference action against targeted publishers on a daily basis. While interfering with the delivery of a U.S. Postal Service letter is a felony crime, Google actively interferes with the delivery of electronic mail on a minute-by-minute basis, with no apparent criminal liability whatsoever.

• This means that online advertising giants—and their second-tier advertising partners—are now censoring e-commerce based entirely on their personal dislike for the speech content originating from a news brand that’s related to the e-commerce platform.

• Such forms of censorship may violate federal law’s protections of the right to engage in commerce without interference…. In a tech-driven society, this is akin to stealing and destroying the postal mail of your neighbors merely because you hate their politics, yet Google and Yahoo pursue these malicious actions on a daily basis, without any apparent repercussions.

• In essence, the combination of censorship, suppression, intimidation and other tactics will, if not stopped, lead to a future internet where only one “official” opinion is allowed for any given topic of discussion.

• The United States government has a compelling interest in preserving the marketplace of free ideas, even when those ideas are unpopular or consist of criticism against the government itself.

• To accomplish this goal, the United States Congress must act with urgent legislation, and relevant regulators (FCC, FTC) must assert regulatory oversight that protects a fair and free marketplace of ideas across the ‘net. We need, in other words, an “Internet Freedom Act.”

[Suggested Solutions:]

[1] DECLARE THE DOMINANT ONLINE PLATFORMS OF SPEECH TO BE “PUBLIC COMMONS” COMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE, ESSENTIAL FOR INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATION IN MODERN SOCIETY.

• When an online platform reaches over 50% market penetration in its appropriate sector (such as social media, search, videos, etc.) it should be deemed an “essential service” for the public at large, making it subject to laws and regulations that prohibit discriminatory censorship.

[2] OUTLAW THE CENSORING OF CONTENT BASED ON POLITICAL VIEWS OR “UNPOPULAR” VIEWS ON SCIENCE, MEDICINE, HISTORY AND RELIGION.

• As part of the legislative and regulatory reforms that are needed today, lawmakers should specifically name content areas (subject matter) which are protected by those laws. Protected topics must include politics, science, medicine, history, religion, sexuality and others.

[3] INVOKE RICO ACT INDICTMENTS AND PROSECUTIONS AGAINST FACEBOOK, ALPHABET AND OTHER INTERNET GATEKEEPERS FOR WAGING MAFIA-STYLE CAMPAIGNS OF INTIMIDATION AND OPPRESSION.

[4] SEEK CRIMINAL INDICTMENTS AGAINST FACEBOOK, GOOGLE, YOUTUBE AND TWITTER FOR INTERFERING IN THE 2018 ELECTIONS AND COMMITTING WHAT ROBERT MUELLER CALLS A “CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA”.

[5] PASS LAWS THAT ALLOW INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN CENSORED FOR POLITICAL REASONS TO SUE THE DOMINANT ONLINE PLATFORMS FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

• One way to halt online censorship by tech giants is to make it financially unwise for them to engage in such actions. This can be achieved by passing laws that allow the victims of censorship—whose personal lives, professional lives and small businesses have been destroyed—to sue the tech giants for damages.

• Under this system, if a tech giant wished to ban someone, they would have to file a case with the third party arbitration organization which would alert the user to the case so that they could appear in their defense. No bans could be carried out without the decision authority of the arbitration entity, and all decisions would be openly published for public review…. A similar procedure is currently in place regarding domain name intellectual property disputes.

[6] OUTLAW EMAIL ISPs FROM INTERFERING WITH THE DELIVERY OF EMAIL THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY END USERS.

• Just as it is currently illegal for individuals or organizations to interfere with the delivery of the U.S. mail, it should also be illegal for ISPs (such as gmail) to interfere with the delivery of email that is requested by the end user. The ongoing interference of email newsletter delivery is an insidious form of selective censorship.

[7] BREAK UP GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, TWITTER AND OTHER TECH GIANTS UNDER ANTITRUST LEGISLATION

• Existing law already provides justification under the RICO Act (racketeering) to criminally indict executives of Google, Facebook and other tech giants.