shutting down debate

You know why I show happy puppy pictures with posts like this one.

Two Facebook “insiders” have leaked to Project Veritas documents stating the tech giant’s intention to track and censor “vaccine hesitancy” (https://granthshala.com/facebook-whistleblowers-leak-documents-revealing-effort-to-censor-vaccine-hesitancy-report/). Because they don’t think you should be allowed to read any discouraging words about any COVID-19 vaccine.

What? We have a right to hear only one side of the discussion? Well, that’s Big Tech’s usual M.O., isn’t it? No debate–“The science is settled!” Like it always is. And settled their way, no one else’s.

These vaccines were rushed into production, they have not yet been officially approved by the Food and Drug Administration–well, you know what you get when you mix science and politics. You just get politics.

Facebook and the rest of these Big Tech overlords need to be taught they don’t have any right or authority to control public opinion. If Congress is afraid to rein them in, it’ll have to be done by the states. Florida is already leading the way: Floridians can now sue the tech biggies for up to $100,000 in damages if they’ve been banned or censored.

In America all public policy has always been subject to debate. Leftids always–yes, always–try to shut down the debate. And I don’t know what kind of government you’d call it, but I’d be ashamed to call it America.

ᐈ Debate cartoon stock images, Royalty Free debate illustrations | download on Depositphotos®

Watch what you say in that debate!

Somehow the watchword for today is “allow”–as in, what will government “allow” us to say, do, or think?

The New York legislature is trying to pass a law that would punish any person or group that “indirectly”–what?–allows “hate speech” (https://www.thecollegefix.com/new-york-bill-would-block-funding-for-student-groups-that-indirectly-allow-hate-speech/). So, for instance, the host of a debate would be criminally liable for any “hate speech” uttered by one side or the other during the debate.

On the griddle would be anyone who “directly or indirectly promotes, encourages, or permits hate speech.” The New York Senate has passed this monstrosity for three years in a row, but it has yet to get past the Assembly. Meanwhile the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled similar capers unconstitutional.

Two little quibbles:

As usual, “hate speech” is not defined… so it could turn out to be virtually anything. The Senate has been concerned with anti-Israel speech spoken by pro-Palestinian groups. Uh-huh–but the wording of the proposed law can brand anything as hate speech. What will we be allowed to say? That can change from day to day, depending on who got up on the wrong side of the bed.

And then there’s that bit about “permitting” hate speech. If it’s not defined, who can avoid “permitting” it? Now we are all responsible for whatever anybody else says?

Is it just me, or is government at every level getting more and more oppressive?