If you’ve been following the news over the past several months, then you probably already know about the censorship of “alternative media” (non-mainstream media websites such as this one) by corporate internet giants like Google and Facebook. This censorship is a huge problem if you are trying to find different viewpoints on a topic because any censorship prevents you from being able to find information which contradicts the prevailing narrative in the mass media or from the government.
Obviously, those who want to control how you think don’t want opposing viewpoints. A recent article posted by our friends at The Free Thought Project details some of those efforts to control viewpoints:
Last week, Mark Zuckerberg made the media rounds to give a rather shady explanation of why Facebook suddenly closed hundreds of incredibly popular pages in what’s being called The Alternative Media Purge. Zuckerberg accused the closed pages, many of which had millions of fans, of spreading “political spam.”
Ironically, many of the pages that were shut down had absolutely nothing to do with politics or elections, unless you include the fact that they recommended skipping the entire circus. None of these pages were accused of being “the Russians,” who were the scapegoat of the last surprise presidential election results. A couple of the things that many of the pages did have in common, incidentally, were an anti-war outlook and a police watchdog mentality.
But as far as making the election more resistant to interference, the result of the Alternative Media Purge is the diametric opposite. People will now only get one side of the story.
Obviously, alternative media is huge and has had a huge impact. Some have attributed Trump’s surprising win in this past Presidential election to alternative media being able to bring viewpoints to the world that were being censored by the mainstream media.
However, whether you are a Trump supporter or not, it should concern you that tech giants have been censoring alternative media. After all, no one in the mainstream media is talking about how vulnerable the U.S. power grid is. No one in the mainstream media is telling people how to be self-sufficient so that they don’t have to depend on city utilities and the large food corporations if they don’t want to.
In other words, censorship limits information which limits options to choose from. After all, you can’t choose to take precautions to know how to find and purify water in a survival situation if you can’t find an information source on how to do it.
However, there may be a light at the end of this tech giant censorship tunnel: the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take a case which could impact whether tech giants can continue to censor informatino which their employees disagree with. Carmine Sabia writes,
After the recent purge of over 800 independent media outlets on Facebook, the Supreme Court is now hearing a case that could have ramifications for any future attempts at similar purges.
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to take a case that could change free speech on the Internet forever.
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702, the case that it has agreed to take, will decide if the private operator of a public access network is considered a state actor, CNBC reported.
The case could affect how companies like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google and YouTube are governed. If the Court were to issue a far-reaching ruling it could subject such companies to First Amendment lawsuits and force them to allow a much broader scope of free speech from its users.
The Court decided to take the case on Friday and it is the first case that was taken after Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Court.
DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Melendez claimed that they were fired from Manhattan Neighborhood Network for speaking critically of the network. And, though the case does not involve the Internet giants, it could create a ruling that expands the First Amendment beyond the government.
The Court could either rule in MNN’s favor, rule against it in a narrow scope that does not affect other companies, or it could rule in a broad manner that would prevent the abilities of private networks and Internet companies to limit or censor speech on their platforms.
This is a court case which you’ll want to follow closely because the repercussions of the Supreme Court’s decision could change the information which you hear in upcoming elections which, of course, could impact the outcome of that election.
Let’s hope and pray that the Supreme Court shows wisdom in their ruling and that free individuals are allowed to find the truth, no matter how unpopular it is to some people.