No One Should Have This Much Power

No One Should Have This Much Power
by
Julio Gonzalez, M.D., J.D.
 
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Sir John Dalberg-Acton.
 
As the federalistpages.com reported, the press and the leftist Democratic Party have continued its assault on President Trump through the propagation of a false narrative asserting that he "instigated" the violence of January 6 and that he is responsible for the most well organized "riot" in the history of civil unrest.  According to the mainstream media and the Democratic leadership, President Trump is to blame for the totality of the day's rancorous activity, yet fail to provide any specific evidence for the association.  It is sufficient for them to continue delivering their conclusory comments until the world accepts them as true.  To them, there is no need for discussion. No need for debate.  Rather, everyone is to accept their deductions at face value or suffer the consequences.  And in this case, the consequences have been plenty.
 
Facebook issued statements on January 6 and January 7 announcing that it was removing a video of President Trump speaking about the protests.  There was no Due Process and no opportunity for redress.  As it turns out, the video Facebook elected to block is the very one President Trump used to issue a call for calm and to ask his followers assembled in D.C. to go home "in peace."  Audaciously, Facebook said, "on balance these posts contribute to, rather than diminish, the risk of ongoing violence."  In its January 7 update, Facebook then announced that it was extending the block upon the President for at least two more weeks, which not coincidentally spans past the end of his presidency.  
 
In the meantime, Twitter permanently suspended the President's @realDonaldTrump account.  It claims to have undertaken this action following a thorough analysis of Trump tweets that in their opinion left them wondering about the manner in which they were "being received and interpreted on and off Twitter." Thus, according to Twitter, it is now its role to regulate, not only the content of messages, but amazingly, how they are "being received and interpreted on and off Twitter."  
 
Twitter then went on to cite two examples of tweets that informed its decision.  The first read, “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” and the second, " To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”  Apparently, these overtly innocuous tweets required drastic defensive measure.  
 
As the mammoth social media organizations mobilized, millions of followers left these two platforms for the safety of Parler, a competing platform offering a greater respect for its users' freedoms of speech.  In response, Google and Apple removed Parler from their app stores, and Amazon web services cut it off from its web hosting services, effectively isolating it from the internet.
 
FATAG's actions did not stop there.  Brandon Straka, the founder of the Walk Away Movement and a man who has never advocated for violence, was also removed from Facebook. Apparently, his page ran afoul of the company's "hateful, threatening, or obscene" content.  He is now at CloutHub.  Thousands of other participants unilaterally deemed by these social media platforms to be members of QAnon were similarly removed from Twitter.  Adding to the leftist takeover, Shopify, the e-commerce platform has removed Trump merchandise from its platforms, and the PGA has stopped sponsoring Trump venues for its events. 
 
What FATAG has done is to pull the plug on one half of the nation's political conversations.  It is their content policy on steroids, designed openly and brazenly to shut down not only its political opposition, but its business competition as well.  The degree of power these giants wield is unparalleled in American history and culture, and it will serve little purpose other than to stir up the animus from those who do not share the deranged and evil, elitist socialistic viewpoints emanating from Silicone Valley.  
 
At its core, there are two problems that have set up the situation. First is the concentration of money and influence that resides amongst these companies.  They are organizations bred in a subculture that knows no restraints. To them passing judgment and executing punishment/corrections based on their conclusions is not only appropriate, but central to its existence and self-prescribed policing role.  
 
And for those of you eager to claim that they have no authority to engage in this type of policing power, think again. Congress afforded it to them, which is the second major problem.  Article 47 U.S. § 230(c)(2)(A) confers immunity upon any "interactive computer service" that, in good faith, "restrict[s] access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."[1]  
 
And with that Congress deemed the "interactive computer service" companies its Ministry of Political Speech.  
 
Make no mistake; the situation that is materializing here is dangerous beyond compare.  In allowing it, we are essentially creating the same scenario existing in Communist dictatorships where voices are silenced and contrarian views are erased from the public's consciousness.  That accomplished, there will be two more prongs to complete the takeover: taking away the people's weapons and dissolving their relationship with God.  We can ill afford to allow any one of these foundational pillars to be taken from us, whether by government or by private institution. Our very freedoms depend on it.
 
 
Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopaedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He served in the Florida House of Representatives.  He is the author of numerous books including The Federalist Pages, The Case for Free Market Healthcare, and Coronalessons.  He is available for appearances and book signings, and can be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com.
 
[1]One must question whether Congress has the authority to allow confer immunity upon an organization to limit constitutionally protected speech, but that is a topic for another conversation.

---