Congress Meows On Censorship

FBI knows. Skeletons in Congress closets. A photo, a trip, a child

In February after great turmoil in my world for 65 years my rage waxes exceedingly bright towards GOVERNANCE. As the moon grows towards fullness, it waxes. Though Republicans are new in power they remain the same political simulators. The 15th and final vote for House speaker gave McCarthy 216 votes, a bare majority that was lower than the normal 218 votes needed because all six of his remaining GOP opponents relented and voted "present." Reps.-elect Andy Biggs of Arizona, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Elijah Crane of Arizona, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Bob Good of Virginia and Matt Rosendale of Montana voted "present" in the final round.

In the end, no Republican voted against McCarthy, which was the closest thing to GOP unity seen all week.

• "The science of politics is the one science that is deposited by the streams of history,

• like the grains of gold in the sand of a river; and the knowledge of the past, the record

• of truths revealed by experience, is eminently practical, as an instrument of action and a power

• that goes to making the future ...............and remember .....

  • where you have a concentration

  • of power in a few hands,

  • all too frequently

  • men with the mentality of gangsters get control.History has proven that. Power corrupts,
    and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  • John Dalberg-Acton (1834-1902

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/congress-set-expose-what-may-be-largest-censorship-system-us-history

Alien and Sedition Acts are part of American History. Suspending Habeas Corpus is too. Censorship of speech sorta in the eyes of the beholder, eg AUTHORITY.

So long as corporations do the censoring, they contend, it is not a free-speech problem.

This obviously is wrong on several fronts.

The First Amendment is not the exclusive measure of free speech. Corporate censorship of political commentaries or news stories are denials of free speech that harm our democratic system.

Second, this is a First Amendment violation. The Twitter files have substantiated long-standing concerns over “censorship by surrogate” or proxy. As with other amendments like the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches or seizures, the government cannot use private agents to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. Just as a police officer cannot direct a security guard to break into an apartment and conduct a search, the FBI cannot use Twitter to censor Americans.

To be fair, there were occasions when Twitter reportedly balked at government demands for raw political censorship — in one case, a demand by Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) led a frustrated Twitter censor to object that “We don’t do this.”

Nevertheless, Twitter’s management certainly now seems to admit that the company worked as an agent of the FBI and carried out most demands for social media suspensions, removals or blocks of individuals. At the same time, the FBI pushed for closer collaboration on content removal.

We do not know the full extent of this operation or its impact, but Congress should want to know if the FBI and other agencies created a system of censorship-by-surrogate. The only reason we now have Twitter’s previously secret communications is because an eccentric billionaire bought the company.

The broader effort with other companies could well constitute the largest censorship program ever run by the government — a system designed to escape both public and judicial scrutiny. It also shows how it is no longer necessary to have a “Ministry of Information” to maintain a state media: You can have an effective state media by consent rather than by coercion or control.

The FBI’s response to disclosure of these long-secret communications is particularly chilling. When some critics denounced it as raw censorship, the FBI accused them of being “conspiracy theorists … feeding the American public misinformation.” So, criticism of the FBI’s work to censor citizens resulted in an official statement denouncing those citizens.

None of these denials or attacks succeed, however. The public understands the threat and strongly supports an investigation into the FBI’s role in censoring social media. Despite the push for censorship by some politicians and pundits, most Americans still want free-speech protections. It is in our DNA.

This country was founded on deep commitments to free speech and limited government — and that constitutional tradition is no conspiracy theory.