This broadcaster has 754 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
March 29, 2022 3:27 pm
Social media giants don't want people talking about their massive First Amendment problem. Freedom of speech is a foundational principles of the United States. Jay, Jordan, and the rest of the Sekulow team lend their legal analysis as well as share their firsthand experience dealing with social media fact-checkers. We discuss this and more today on Sekulow.
Social media when you hear me talking about the secular folks said the broadcast of the tease the broadcast. This is a conversation social media companies don't want you to hear. We saw you on Boss Tweed out that given the Twitter service quote the de facto public Townsquare failing to adhere to free-speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy. What should be done is a new platform needed now this is somewhat obviously with the financial beads to watch a new platform working to get into this today because we have been targeted at the ACLJ twice on Facebook directly for information that was not wrong or inaccurate, and we had to fight back.
Of course we got the resources to fight back as an organization. What I want to hear from you is what happens when you post something and you get shadow bed or your account deactivated. Give us a call at one 800 684 31 two that's 100-684-3110 because dad this is a growing problem about a Washington DC today and this week, but it's a growing problem for conservatives on social media to be able to freely speak their mind and share information from the ACLJ. Look, we've had two incidents in a month one was labeled. The information we put up was labeled by Facebook's sensors, as partly Paul's by the way they came back then and said they took all those warnings down.
But of course they did their damage and then about two weeks later we got one that said false information about a hearing. We actually did, and then they took those down, but then said it was missing, context, and where the ones that did the hearing, but this is what's going on Logan right now. Yeah it's happening all over social media. You know you seen people talk about it and that we have been very successful in social media. A lot of see the show, broadcast on social media. Whether that is on Facebook or YouTube or rumble. We are there we are active on twitter and on Instagram. We are everywhere we feel at that voice needs to be your share needs to be heard everywhere. The big question is the protection of these companies and whether is Elon musk said as the public square.
Move from the physical public square to social media. I was in. These are privately held companies, so there are a lot of different rules and regulations with the minute value has expertise in Wishard and maybe can at least elaborate, at least look at the concept of if cases can be had, so the truth of the matter is that I started my career arguing public form cases were actually talk about that later in the broadcast. What is that was Elon.
Most of the marketplace of ideas and the social media platforms have become the marketplace by disease in the Townsquare issue was that was the Townsquare was the government and the First Amendment applied to government restrictions on free speech. It doesn't necessarily apply when you've got a situation where the speech is not by the government restricts not by the government, but by a private organization using their platform.
The argument being you have no constitutional right to access a platform but you know what twitter 12 Facebook and these other groups don't have a constitutional right to protection under section 230. Either they also do a lot of damage. We see that happening with our own page of our own groups that are all these things because if they get it wrong if the lead story gets it wrong there corrections often do more damage to your brand because you're getting more notifications another adjusting all we were completely right that everything was wrong. Now, or only partially right that neurons really tell people again that you were wrong and after fighting by that point the damage is done and that's a big concern here, people invested their lives and their careers in the social media, and now it's turning on them and a lot of times when they're straight up wrong and what are the issues to ABC the difficulties in launching new platforms. It would probably take an Elon musk style kind of influx of cash to be able to launch a new free-speech platform here in the United States and also people can utilize around the world.
Particular calls how to fix you 1-800-684-3110 support the work of the ACLJ were on this issue as well donate today ACLJ.org we have our matching challenge double the impact of your donation ACLJ.org donate today will be right back on secular defending for that. We are grateful.
Now there's an opportunity for you to help me in the way comes 100 constitutional and religious freedoms. Most only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission life will show you how you are personally sealed. Jesus/this is what is so unique about this debate on social media and the need for basically a new public form because online whether you like it or not is becoming the world that social media is becoming a world that is the new public form in America where you share your views.
And while some companies that have created these platforms may not like that you would look at a platform like Twitter that the entire point is to be able to share views and the idea that she would be in a country that maximizes free-speech that maximizes the freedom to speak openly to have disagreements and again that does not include criminal activity that's not covered under First Amendment protections.
So these companies can no longer hide behind the idea that their policing speech I be the first time this happened to us on social media that we know about. I would say that we know about because it was done publicly, was when we shared basically a Fox News story about the Durham report update that there was a court filing that that had information that appear that the Clinton campaign was funding the effort to undermine the truck campaign via the Russian disinformation and the steel dossier we posted that similar information of Fox and dad right away. We were flagged multiple times. When they started flagging post that had nothing to do with it writes it was labeled partly Paul's and by the way during that when I read if you remember Jordan, I can read right from the indictment right from the document and then they labeled partly Paul's balls and then they started labeling other programs that we did that had nothing to do with the partly Paul's based on the Durham report basin because of what information the Durham report. This is partly Paul's that I took off those flags. Logan they remove them, but they did a Lotta damage. They notified our members are our subscribers all over the country. I believe anyone as far as we can tell anyone who shared the broadcast of broadcast the clips or the means or the images are interacting with a commented like were all given notifications on what you like what you commented what you shared that was what we consider of false news or not involvement just either partially fall partly false and then backed it up. You have a couple different times so we saw that happen in both times.
One time they do completely remove any sort of flag. The other time breakfast fill in conversation with them, but they had to take it they had to take that off that with a distribution of falls they had to then go back and release remove that part and adjust their language issue correct in the second second time it happened to us of the one Logan talk about that were still working on is a complex legislative matter in state in a state legislature in Maryland about a abortion bill where there was language where they didn't use the term prenatal, but they they use a term that would also be postnatal post birth turning and it was different pieces of of legislation were happening at the Statehouse in the state Senate and they they tried to label our information as partially false, but they did what they did understand was the Complex nature of what we were talking about was it in the Senate. We had had it in the state Senate. They corrected the language, but that is Statehouse they had not yet corrected the language and and you don't know at that point what legislation is going to actually make it to to to to the final form that would end up on the governor's desk and we were in the middle of scheduling hearings that were being moved around so they were getting in the weeds just trying to get in the weeds on a complex matter involving abortion, rather than just letting us speak our view on the legislation to our own audience who signed up to get in part to give to get our information. It's unlikely that Facebook to share you with everybody just to get it to the people to decide up to say we want the ACLJ's info you note on that one. We had already submitted written testimony about the issue, so they're arguing with us and him say to myself, where the lawyers handling the matter and you got some fact checking group that are not lawyers doing all of that.
Yeah, and you can even see see it happen on social media all the time right now on rumble. There's thousands of people watching right now in rubble and more free-speech platform. Yes, much but it is labeled a smaller audience. In theory, like the mounting of their action honorable compared to have regular on Facebook that interact with your posts. However, they have outpaced the Facebook broadcast now for a good couple weeks because little like twice thanks to rubble for obsolete they been sharing the show. They would talk about it but it shows that the percentages are way off in terms of what people get to see what they don't get to see what's pushed into their feed in what they consider again like we said that censorship as we move forward in a new world where you join us right could a new platform be launched yes is it very difficult and incredibly left lower leg rumbled it yet and you have issues that were like sit with you. Must get you the richest guy on the planet. Sure, he may be able to figure it out but that still and maybe you should have ample but I do want to say this about rumbled out because they have been a great home for us over these last several I guess we can do this with mom out of my mouth and we encourage people to rubble that we got a call coming in on that. Let's take Jennifer's call out of Oklahoma.
Jennifer is in the Oklahoma labeling on their going to offer you and platform are First Amendment right.
Yeah, a lot of people would love there to be another outlet.
Another option is going. That means rubble for video is likely to consider the YouTube get for free speech whether you like the speech or not, and that's maybe the thought process moving into a new writing at Elon was saying was something more twitter like but it can also be echo chamber thing that's a concern to as we start doing that and there's no discussion nothing happens. If you create a social media platform that is for conservative you creeps of map Amia 500s only for liberals, then where's the discussion where's the conversation it's now public at that point it is to be revealed.
Soapbox preacher, the old unit they call the public good sidewalks in this city squared one, that later. The public fora and that's where you would have discussions. The newsreaders would come in and read the news and people would debate and you had this robust free-speech while you don't have that right now and then the big tech situations or you just don't know you know you don't have a place where you can openly go and know that what you post again this not criminal in nature. The set illegal in nature won't flag your account and it also and D platform you whether it's a shadow band that we talked about where you're just not your message is not being delivered or whether you're put in twitter jail or Facebook jail for number of days because you happen to shared opinion that there fact checker eat doesn't even understand why are they getting into the weeds of deciding what is right and wrong, not illegal and legal okay but what is right and wrong when it comes to content and the viewpoint that you have and what information. Remember, on all these platforms and Logan ideas support to point out that number of times just to get it again that people who signed up the. The millions of people who are the ACLJ Jay Sekulow Facebook pages signed up on their own to get that information.
They are asking for that information and yet still Facebook is denying them that information.
We know that's happening right now to millions of people to most of those subscribers aren't getting that information on twitter. It's become a game of whether or not they will shut you down if you get involved in any kind of discussion when leading into a midterm election where politics again, people have strong views you might agree with those use or disagree with those used. Sometimes people will present their view as fact because they believe it to be fact you might not believe it to be fact. But how about that discussion happened between Americans who were smart enough to do it on their own.
They don't need these companies policing speech we need a place in America that allows robust freedom again where you see things you don't like here things you don't like, but you're also able to know that you can post information that you do like and that you do want people to see and also I only go back to this point and Logan and that is when they come out and say oh you're right word and corrected it doesn't correct it is that the initial article in the second attack on us. The one that said false information was still open to. I may still be up.
Now they put the little addendum and I were action yeah but it was like the correction in a newspaper on page 8. Well that you did it, just like I just try to hide fact he did it take so they got a rat article up at UK Paulson probation Mason about our own case, I think we know about yeah and it was so you nothing or such like a is not really leg to stand on and they know it, but these companies they been hired to do this independently from the big social media platforms and a lot of times they get it wrong when they get it wrong.
There is a process to challenge it.
We do it each and every time too varying results always to at least them downgrading the problem is is they then sometimes will they will sometimes and just send out another alert to you saying stuff you shared contains your partially or partly false information or I was missing context where that is well lit insight we are backing this down because of this you just get another alert to your phone. Again, creating irreparable damage to your brand.
Oh yeah, I mean it's ridiculous say this to for a legal group to put in all that context on out until retirement legislation to be hundreds of pages long. There fact checkers could even do it they would be able to read or understand the language we use as attorneys so it's it's a joke. It's obviously a partisan attack because were pro-life. It happens to be that were supporting changes to legislation that would be pro-life and anti-abortion on demand at any time, so there's no way they can actually fact check actual legislation, born the proposals that were making the change it, they would not be able to put that much context together you could even do that what our broadcast that the work of art attorneys do behind the seats so I get support our work were not backing down and were taken. This had on were not afraid to call out Facebook were not afraid to call out by name, support the work of the ACLJ double your impact. Your donation would a matching challenge month were little bit behind. We need your support at ACLJ's donate today ACLJ.org double the impact your donation ACLJ.org will be right back only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life. We've created a free powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold edition life will show you how you are personally sealed.
Jesus lowering the right question for you/the American Center for Law and Justice were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad.
Whether it's defending religious freedom. Protecting those who face covering correction in the Washington bureaucracy fighting to protect life reports and in Congress ACLJ for that. We are grateful.
Now there's an opportunity for you to help in any way. $20, $50 gift becomes 100 constitutional and back to secular to be effective.
The social media discussion read some more of our experts in the second half hour of the broadcast on Washington DC really see the a lot more back in Washington DC as things begin to reopen you was here last month and we're planning some new efforts actually tie right into this thing with the broadcast because were expanding the work we do diplomatically with representatives from countries directly so not just working on the international stage, but actually working with diplomats all talk about that in a moment what were working on in Washington DC and up a new program that were to be doing in Washington DC but again we bid showing you how we've been able to maintain our presence at the United Nations are Europeans there from our Justice is a recognized NGO at the UN, and we been participating in giving these oral interventions on countries of where there is concern for religious persecution and and religious liberty.
One of those I just did was on Nigeria. I want you to watch this. This is again this is officially played before the UN human rights Council such as the video we put out. It's a video they put out that we participated. Take take a listen or watch is a fool to present a full therapist for Law and Justice. Thank you Mr. Pres. since 2013. The EC LJ has continually brought to this Council's attention. The genocidal situation Christians face Nigeria in the past 12 years.
Islamic extremist groups have been responsible for the deaths of approximate 43,000 Christians in the attacks on 17,500 churches in the violence is ongoing. Christians are targeted homes were burned to the ground, and children are being abducted at alarming rates.
For example, on January 20 of this year.
Local ROM abducted 17 girls after an attack on a village in Bordeaux state during the attack.
Local ROM also terrorize the villagers by shooting sporadically and inverting down to churches into homes. We must not forget Leah sherbet a Christian school girl who was kidnapped in February 2018 and remains a Captiva Poco who ROM still today simply because she is refused to abandon her Christian faith action must be taken to prevent further harm to thousands of more innocent Nigerians at the hands of terrorist groups.
Christian should be able to peacefully live out their faith and attend religious services without the fear that they will be attacked and killed while doing so. The EC LJ calls upon the UN to take the immediate necessary action to stop the violence and rescue Leah sherbet, as well as all other Christian hostages thank you again, I would go right to you. It speaks to the seriousness of the issues were handling international unit kidding CC house on the set with me here and we were to talk about this when you were given that testimony, I want everybody understand that is played before the human rights Council, which is not necessarily a friendly organization but you know what is called the ministry of presence. You gotta be there now. What's important is we deal with multiple bodies inside the UN position were talking about a case this morning.
We may take it affect the case and you gave an intervention on witnessing a moment out of Pakistan and we may take it to the arbitration panel right said that the working group on arbitrary detention would be another UN agency that we would go before on to address this issue that we had a case in Pakistan that we are gonna talk a little bit more about is give a little bit of background on the KCC before the play video right cell and are our office impacts an affiliate office in Pakistan. We represent on a juvenile when he was arrested as she is not Missy was 17 years old. He was a janitor at the hospital and he got into a religious conversation with that older much more savvy religiously sat a Muslim and ended up stating that he had heard a friend of his father's who was Muslim make a blasphemous statement and just because he said that that turned into a mob coming after him. He got arrested on even when the, the police, the superintendent of police investigated. He found that he was not guilty of making a blasphemous statement yet. The prosecutor still went after this young man and he's been sitting in prison for Friday and is the second case in Pakistan and my understanding of the facts are the Supreme Court of Pakistan which is these are Islamic countries with Islamic courts. Basically, this is a Christian who is been missing 14-year-old girl right yes 14 years old Christian girl as she had been contacted 40 times the data portion is impaired by a Muslim neighbor inappropriate contact and they don't even know how he got her phone number disappeared. The very next day the police will not investigate because is because she is a Christian and they will not go find this young girl, simply because of her faith folks so the European Center for Law and Justice are filling is prospered, has NGO nongovernmental organization status CC how many presentation just like Jordan did to the UN human rights Council on this case. Take a listen I give a fork to European Center for Law and Justice. Thank you, Mr. Pres. Pakistan has been rated the eighth worst place in the world for Christian persecution EC LJ's affiliate in Pakistan legally represents many of these Christian victims and our team current cases that require this counsel's immediate attention.
The first case involves a false blasphemy accusation, which is not Missy has been in prison for almost 5 years despite the fact that the superintendent of the police even testified that he is not guilty of any crime. Yet she is not a juvenile when arrested remains in prison and if convicted. This completely innocent young Christian man will be sentenced to death. The second case also involves a young Christian has been deprived of justice, NJ was only 14 years old when she tragically disappeared. Although her parents turned over evidence of their 45-year-old Muslim neighbor inappropriately contacting her daughter over 40 times right before her disappearance.
The police refused to investigate and a child disappearance alert system refuses to send out any alert even worse, the Supreme Court recently declined to order the police to find her. Unless the parents tell them her location such a ludicrous statement by the highest court is an absolute mockery of justice. Meanwhile, this innocent young girl remains missing and her parents don't even know if their daughter is still alive.
Pakistan cannot allow these types of cases to continue without justice must be reminded of its obligations to protect all its citizens including its minorities, and especially innocent children. Thank you more about the Michelob of an engineer but redoing Washington to increase our infant influence and impact. Yes, we brought in new members of our team and we are are going to be launching in NACLJ really diplomat training program for foreign diplomats based in Washington DC and it's good to start off with basically walking through that the Constitution and the different branches of our government.
The legislative branch executive branch, the judicial branch and the inner workings there, but also what topics it is focused on the for these diplomats is specifically relaunching this program next month and that this will be continuous at the ACLJ will also be bringing later on you to some of our more high-profile members of the ACLJ team for these diplomats like a former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo like for acting director of national intelligence and ambassador to Germany record.
Now I sort of using the expertise we have at the ACLJ to develop relationships with the diplomats based here in Washington DC so that again, we are expanding our work were going to be trading them in a kind of American politics and civics 101, but the cool thing about it is it will be developing the relationships of what an issue arises where we need their assistance or we need to know the coalition of countries to come together on one of the topics of either CC or I just talked about at the UN.
We can do it because rid have better direct staff level contacts we are expanding that work here in Washington DC it is something were able to do because your financial support of the American Center for Law and Justice be able to expand our work expand our team. Expand the offerings were making to the diplomats based here. All because of you and inside of our ACLJ DC headquarters support the work of the ACLJ financing got a matching challenge almost at the end of the month. We are behind in art matching town so we need your financial support. Donate today ACLJ.org the American Center for Law and were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad for limited time you can participate in the ACLJ matching challenge for every dollar you donate, it will be now. $10 becomes $20, $50 gift becomes 100 checking the constitutional and religious freedoms most to you and your family. You forgive today online keeping you informed and now is Jordan secular everybody you from our studios in Washington in the second half are the broadcasts really back discussion this week titled the show a a discussion and information that big tech and social media companies. They want you to hear and want you to understand the way that they are coming after the conservative viewpoint on social media and in this sense as Elon musk wrote himself. When you are see online places like Twitter and Facebook as places where really it became the new public for and were used to communicating electronically to those that were friends with but even the people we don't know and to engage in these conversations, but that what we've seen is a systematic takedown of conservative viewpoint. If either by banning those those viewpoints altogether. We saw the present United States be banned altogether or abided by these platforms deciding hey, we don't care that you have 4 million or 5 billion people who want your information were not going to deliver it to the you know, we have collectively between your pages. My pages in the ACLJ page on Facebook alone almost 9 million to 8 and a half-million I think is the number and then you'll see the response on the broadcast way down or we get those notices admit that getting a free pass because woman talk about this with Terry Hutchison at the end of the broadcasts or the next segment because of the section 230 immunity that they have what they have squelched free speech. That's what were thrilled with rumble on the video side. The YouTube side of it, so to speak. All rubble has been great and were thrilled that they posted us and promoted us joy, let's go ahead and take a phone call because a lot of people would call you Jerry's calling from Rhode Island online was going to take Jerry's goal hey Gerald show you're on the in regards to what tribe and Howard Hill, Jake Inc. at an end date.
Not had their constitutional right to conduct commerce affected and individually each of J Logan joint. How are you not been defamed when they falsely tag you will you bring up a good question. I have said that when they send out these false tags that they are tortiously interfering with business they forcefully interfere with your brand and it's it is a defamation of sorts on your brands but and then they go back and correct and the corrections is as we said, meaningless, but they're not a state actor so that is not pure free speech First Amendment implications on this and they have the protections under section 232 joy.
That's the problem they have got this kind of protection.
And that's what your were reevaluating whether we think that's a good idea anymore. Jordan yet and I think that he relieved that the next segment his people here that thrown around.
We can actually explain the prophecy. Don't miss that break down the section 230 Sunday. It had a point when it existed initially that point has now expired and is being abused by social media companies at which by the way folks again that they will come to grips because of the jury brought up a great point, which is they come to you and say spend money on advertising. Get more supporters get more followers to come to your page, but the same time. So take that money at the same time they are deep platform. You are the sense that you are not able to deliver your message to those supporters that you may be spending advertising money with them on to get to your page so there is a difference between just censoring information, but that also because of the monetary exchange here dad. I do think that they are in a bit deeper water.
Then they can just behind a hide behind a corporate shielded Civil War Corporation we get to decide what goes out.
What doesn't I be that there little bit different than that they are and their skewing the marketplace of ideas of a don't kid yourself for a moment, their skewing the marketplace of ideas and that's one of the things were looking at here but again when they come back and they said they're challenging their fact checker is challenging us the lawyers that are actually handling the case and say we put up all statements by correcting that. But they still send out those notices then they said we were complete totally false and one thing that we were handling the issue. They set out always just out of context of the said it was false, but the damage was already done and that's why you fight back and were going to fight back is to support the work of the American Center for Law and firstname.lastname@example.org were a matching challenge campaign right now. We encourage you to support a work ACLJ.org. Any amount you donate to us this month we get a matching gift for so that's ACLJ.O RG ACLJ.org if you want to talk to us about this big tech censorship call us at 800-684-3110 that's 1-800-684-3110 got a lot more coming ahead of the American Center for Law and were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad defending religious freedom. Those were that we are grateful to others an opportunity for you to help me way 20 oh comes 100 constitutional and only one. A society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive. And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life.
We've created three powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn Gold edition will show you how you are personally sealed. Jesus/secular. So the question is section 230 you hear about it so often when the social media companies since her you censor us since her a conservative viewpoint. Identity is important now that today is broadcast to really break down what that is it, what it isn't, and whether or not there is a political move to question whether it should be reformed or just completely thrown out and and no longer be this protection, the social media companies hide behind with a sensor speech, so I've asked our Dir. policy Prof. Hutchison to join us on this discussion because section 230 is a of the communications decency act area has been a sort of immunity for these big tech companies from liability for instance when they wrongfully take something down or censor a viewpoint, so they've had the shield of protection legislatively. I think that is correct but the question becomes whether or not they have taken excess liberty in the usage of section 230. By engaging in collusion with government or governmental entities. If they do so. One could argue for instance that they have engaged in an in-kind contribution to one political party. And so then the question becomes, have they reported this contribution to the Federal election commission. It is very, very doubtful. They have done so and so, if you look at all of the discussions that we've had in the nation. Since Pres. Biden took off his press secretary Jen Saki has continually called upon the big tech companies to do what to actively censor contrary points of view. To the extent that they engage in such conduct, then the question becomes, do we have an active cool. Do we have active collusion or an active conspiracy if you will, that ought to void a section 230 now I would argue that my claims badly so far tried unquestionable grounds because we have not yet had a just decision by a federal court on this issue, but this particular issue deserves tremendous scrutiny because there is clear and unmistakable evidence backed by an academic paper which shows that there may have been some election misconduct in 2020. This is why this is a study by John Mott and the question becomes will this academic study by an individual who has a PhD in economics and a law degree and a distinguished academic record for the last 30 years will it now be suppressed like YouTube suppressed AC pack convention. More recently, the US is quite amended with the coming of what Harry said and that is if you got right now. The four present United States when Pres. Trump is banned from Facebook if you want to be the nominee in 2010, 20, 24, and resume is Joe Biden running for the Democratic Party of negative van continue that ban because boy is exactly what Harry said Jordan it's one side of the debate has all the access yet to be stricken into other loss outside of section 230 that you could be in violation of actuaries because you you could be soup so you have asked what Harry said because then you get into FEC laws election laws.
This federal laws are that the state laws on that.
But if you're opening up a form only for different only for the Democrat nominee only for one of the two major party nominees you see where that becomes a legal issue as well and again this idea that they will just hide behind his five fortunately, we're good talking to Tim and Colorado online want to fix or hold on your the year you might call it very helpful to hear the end of what happened ACLJ associated platforms. My question is this sort of multipart do you know of instances when any social media platform is worn or shut down poster videos presented viewpoints from progressive or liberal perspectives and what the social media response was, and what can be done to publicize those biases easy references. I mean I get back to the beach speak definitively say it's never happened because sometimes these happen accidentally as well because of the turbines used to be. That's how fundamentally flawed. Some these systems are to use the wrong term so that could happen to somebody who's liberal. What I do know is it overall that the Democrat President is not banned from social media, the former Republican President is and he might be a candidate again and he still banned at this point it will take buses in band, the Ayatollah from Iran's not banned either. Let me think about that for a moment, Harry having you know the talk about the ridiculous nature of all of this and these note process which but but their controlling of being washed in the marketplace of ideas.
Now, absolutely. And so it's very very important with respect to, for instance, the Ayatollah, these are big tech companies.
They basically claimed that they will banned calls for violence except violence that either comes from terrorists organizations or from the left and so I think they are very very selective in the deployment of their algorithms and they deploy those algorithms by and large, to do's advantage conservative speech and so I think every American ought to be incredibly vigilant with respect to their particular use of social media and to the extent that alternatives pop up. They should take advantage of those alternatives to dry down viewership if you will. These left leaning social media programs and that would deprive them. Hopefully revenue and perhaps in the future we will see new alternatives emerge and so I certainly welcome the claims made by Elon musk that at least he's considering providing the American people with an alternative. Basically, the notion of free speech is impossible to achieve, unless both sides of the debate are indeed heard and so to the extent that we squash one side of the debate. Basically, then we move toward a form of authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and that is inconsistent. If you will with the ideas behind the First Amendment. Classic viewpoint discrimination is what's taking place right now classic viewpoint discrimination you can hear one side of the bait monopoly here. The other side of the debate. But here's what's on it again. I want to think of good folks at rumble who knew it wasn't me a lot of viewpoints at rumble because it's a free marketplace of ideas, but in this is a note that Logan said this earlier, Elon musk, a look at twitter and some of the attempts to redo into other platforms on twitter Jordan up like twitter like Blevins I should say just have not work. You know what I just sick and tired of and it affects our whole team at the ACLJ, such as be or are you but sitting at a tweet but you know from art departments were sending out you don't really assess the information they're putting out information for us in social media is that they are right now dancing playing a dancing game. Yes, hoping that what we put out doesn't get flagged because were pro-life because were conservative because were pro-free speech and that we might use a term about Hillary Clinton that they don't like or that he might use a term about you Hunter by his laptop that they all said was fake news announcer realtors to see that those stories that are the exact issue with the problem of having these at home. Foti fact checkers who pick and choose what they want to be succeed as true and untrue one. Rather than letting the American people make that decision themselves and educate themselves. It's already a small group of Americans will take the time to engage these platforms to very small group but it's a group of people who really do care about the issues on lots of different sides left right center and they care enough to go on to these platforms and yet now they are only getting one viewpoint serve to that and we know that look at the way in which they did an ending up in our situation. They challenged us on two issues we were handling if anybody was in another case, it would've been nice and even when they come back and say all was we should've said partly false or it was one that was a totally false, it wasn't totally false. But we still think it was out of context, which is so subjective it's ridiculous, but it shows you the absurd nature of the censorship you are absolutely correct and Voltaire has suggested that when you allow people to believe in absurdities, then it ultimately culminates in what atrocities and so it's very very imperative that we protect our foundational belief in freedom of speech, because that is important for the determination of political truth of the hundred percent I would appreciate it. I would say this real freedom is what we care about the merits of law and justice. True freedom of speech speech that you might not like we defense piece that you do like we defendant that's real freedom of speech.
We got so far away that far away from that. It woke America were not back down from that fight. Support our work at the ACLJ were experts in the First Amendment supporter work double your impact your donation. We need your financial support right now will be honest and open with you we needed.
Donate today ACLJ.org will be right back.
Only when a society can agree that the most vulnerable invoice is, is there any hope for that culture to survive.
And that's exactly what you are saying when you stand with the American Center for Law and Justice, defendant the right to life, free and powerful publication offering a panoramic view of the ACLJ's battle for the unborn is called mission will show you how sealed Jesus powering the right question for you/the American Center for Law and were engaged in critical issues at home and abroad. Whether it's defending religious freedom.
Protecting those face covering corruption in Washington fighting to protect life reports and in Congress ACLJ for that. We are grateful. Now there's an opportunity for you to help in any way comes 100 constitutional and this is where this fundamental idea is it more and more of us are do feel like we should communicate electronically use the social media platforms as a place like a public form. But what we've learned now that over these past few years with the censorship of the conservative message is that they are by law treated like traditional public forums, and while we have people like Elon musk out there interested in doing it. We've also seen how difficult it is because of who controls the server companies. It's the same companies that are silencing the messaging know that's exactly right.
And if we look at the history of free speech. It was always the public for the public forums that were these marketplace of ideas.
The truth of the matter is the social media platforms in the marketplace of ideas about censorship and I just will either produce or just send me you know Vladimir Putin's official President of Russia. Twitter page there invading Ukraine, killing thousands of people that pages up there putting false statement on these online may meet maybe dab on but the mom scroll and I don't see it, so any the whole idea of a marketplace of ideas is radically changed.
Yes, it has changed significantly. J but in certain point of fact, convinced twitters and rumbling Facebook and you will and is been great about who they've been great fans but I'm saying that all the marketplace of ideas. Yes, everyone of these is a marketplace of ideas and their analogous to what was the streets the parks the sidewalks.
The places that were conditioned and as said by the Supreme Court of the United States as early as the Hague versus CIO case which is a seminal case, I'm a lawyer, I look at law in 1939 the privilege of citizens to use the streets and parks for national questions must not be abridged or denied that was said by the Supreme Court in 1939 public assembly of a people who want to exchange their opinions cannot be provided prevented or prohibited because of someone saying that they don't like to hear what the content of your speech is arbitrary. Six. Suppression of free expression on national affairs on domestic affairs. Uncontrolled suppression of free speech and things of that nature that we are seeing happening is the kind of thing that historically has been anathema to the Supreme Court.
They want us to have these things and these areas like Twitter and so forth. These platforms are really suppressing us in suppressing the identity of the room replaced these huge big tech platforms have replaced the marketplace of ideas. Now they're not government controlled. So the First Amendment issues don't apply like that but regulatory issues could work there are regulatory ways to encourage free free access and free marketplace of ideas. These big tech companies I think are ways to do that. One of those may be the elimination of section 230, but any just gave a very direct statement of what the marketplace of ideas was designed to protect. It was designed to protect divergent viewpoints points of view. You disagreed with you handle that with the speech you do agree with but you don't shut it down and that's what's happening now yells for the phones Matthew in Florida online to Matthew welcome to secular euro.
The air appreciating the content of today's discussion on toilet so you spend it on twitter 14 time and every time no phone call. There's no phone number you can call there's no kind of accountability to their suspension processes are not uniform there there there very subjective admitted data to send the email.
There's no there's no email response. There's nothing they can suspend with impunity the platform you and have no consequences. They are the unaccountable sensor. They are the unaccountable sensor. It's like in in the 50s and 60s on radio they had the NTB that the companies that their sensors and it's now you have any of these are the unaccountable sense of what we have to deal with these tech companies when we do get these flags put on a survey asking a filing say good what's what's new is an and is developed over the last couple years is that there used to be account manager. So for groups like our help Matthew used to be for groups like ours or Lara had these large presences on social media. Some of the most shared content we had someone we could go to it at a Facebook or twitter. They've all pulled back from that.
So they got rid of these account managers that you can work with directly. You have to be a pretty hard big organization now to be able to even get into the conversation about getting rid of the false flags removed. That's because they become the modern sense is about accountability have in there really what what what I've read about them and I and I use the expression, they are the tech tyrants. That's really what they are. The deck tyrants of today, the modern sensors from Roman times we had sensors, we have censorship today, but it censorship of the conservative right.
You don't see them censoring the left. You don't see the liberal democratic media being censored there telling us what we can and cannot discuss in the new public form the airways, the new public form is what these various platforms and I enumerated and they are simply saying that because we don't like what you say whether we we think are not that it ought to be said.
We're going to shut it down. Well I know Jay you said that's not government action and you're correct that is what the First Amendment talks but isn't it really tantamount to government action when they are really using the public surveys as an encouragement monopolistic in the nature of the control that was going to take out Kim's phone call Jordan pay For Michigan. Hank and Welcome to Secular Euro. The Air Background Will Generally Make Look at the Jay Sekulow out Your Dog Barking but Going around Here It Is Bothering Me Initially Skeptical to Initiate a Document and I Think Ultimately I Think of Your Case. Personally Trying to Interfere with Economic Rights with the Right Equipment with the Classical Nation Shall Bear Christ like to Hear Your Discussion on the Email Were Having Section 230. This Is a Great Debate the Great Debate Now Is to Section 230 Immunity from Liability Is Does Not Need to Go on the Tech Companies. Not That in There Any Cassettes or Shields. Yes, That's the Protection They Go and Say Well We Got a Statutory Protection against That and That's Our Show, but You Are Kim Urinalysis Is Perfectly Right and I Think It's Intentional.
There's No Doubt about It.
They Are Stepping into the Shoes of What Used To Be the Government and What the Supreme Court of the United States Is That As I Said As Early As Hague Versus CIO in 1939, Said Cannot Be Done and That Is the Suppression of Free Ideas in the Public Square in the Public Marketplace. Now the Social Media Platforms.
That's What They Have Become and Developed into Your Folks Were Not.
Again, Were Not Just Talking about This Issue.
We Are Going to Be Diving Right in and Really Looking at One, That This Dissection to 30 but Also What Else Can Be Done Because Again You Got Financial Relationships. A Lot Of Groups You're Talking to You When You Spend Money on Advertising It and a Placement to Grow Your Social Media Platform and Then All the Sudden They Decide Well Your Larder Edit Your Information Is No Longer Going to Be Served to People.
The People Asked for That Information That That's the Other Part of This Is People to Follow You on Twitter. They Have To like Your Page on Facebook They Have To Sign up to Get Your Notifications.
They Take Those Active Steps and Then the Sensors Still Stepped in. So There Censoring Both the Organization, Our Case but Also There Censoring You from Being Able to Access That Information. I Want You to Support Our Work. This Is a It's a Very New Battle, but It's One That Begins with the Same Prevacid and That the ACLJ Is Always Started with the Idea of Our First Amendment Free Speech Rights and Protecting Those at All Cost. Support Our Work at ACLJ.or with a Matching Challenge. This Month We Are Running behind. We Need Your Financial Support Building Today ACLJ.org the American Center for Law and Justice Were Engaged in Critical Issues at Home and Abroad for Limited Time You Can Participate in the ACLJ Matching Challenge for Every Dollar You Donate, It Will Be Now. $10 Becomes $20, $50 Gift Becomes 100 Protecting the Constitutional and Religious Freedoms Most Important to You and Your Family.
You Forgive Today Online