In this era of increased harassment and persecution of people on the basis of political viewpoints and…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
First Amendment Rights: Good News from the IRS on Donor Privacy

In this era of increased harassment and persecution of people on the basis of political viewpoints and First Amendment expression, there’s actually good news to report.

In fact, that positive development comes from none other than the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which few people typically consider a font of good news.

Specifically, the IRS just announced a proposed rule to stop requiring nonprofit organizations to file what’s known as a Form 990 Schedule B, which exposes sensitive donor information not only to the federal government and potential rogues like former IRS official Lois Lerner, but also people who seek to access and use that information to target people on the basis of political belief.

As we at CFIF have long asserted, this welcome move will help protect the…[more]

September 12, 2019 • 11:07 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Don't Let Zuckerberg Kill Free Speech Print
By Betsy McCaughey
Wednesday, May 15 2019
Europe's censorship goes further, squelching competing ideas and limiting the public's range of political choices. Facebook is glad to oblige.

This week, representatives from Facebook, Google and Twitter will join with European leaders and the prime minister of New Zealand to launch a chilling proposal to curb free speech across the internet. Americans should be alarmed. Internet freedom is being extinguished fast in Europe. How long will it survive in the U.S.?

Social media titans such as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg have more influence over our freedom than Supreme Court justices or U.S. presidents. But these internet executives are selling out core American principles for the almighty dollar. They'll do whatever a host country demands. In China, Russia and even capitalist Singapore, internet freedom is already dead, without a murmur of protest by Zuckerberg and others.

Standing alongside French president Emmanuel Macron on Friday, Zuckerberg said, "The question of what speech should be acceptable and what is harmful needs to be defined by regulation, by thoughtful governments." You read that correctly  Zuckerberg's endorsement of censorship, a total repudiation of America's commitment to freedom of expression, the freedom that tops our Bill of Rights.

Of course, Zuckerberg was talking to Europeans. Until these foreign governments finalize their censorship regulations, Facebook is relying on leftist groups such as Avaaz to finger accounts for being "divisive." In Spain, France and Italy, Facebook is already removing accounts expressing populist views on NATO, immigration, Muslims and other controversies.

The prime minister of New Zealand is calling for an internet ban on depictions of mass shootings, such as her country's Christchurch massacre, that could incite copycat violence. All agree that's reasonable. But don't be fooled. Europe's censorship goes further, squelching competing ideas and limiting the public's range of political choices. Facebook is glad to oblige.

Here in the U.S., where the Constitution prohibits government from censoring speech, Facebook is doing the dirty work, imposing its own Silicon Valley brand of political correctness. Recently, Facebook banned commentators and provocateurs including Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan and Milo Yiannopoulos from its platform. Subsequently, Facebook even removed a posting by columnist Michelle Malkin for criticizing this censorship.

Is Zuckerberg ignorant of America's proud history protecting the speech rights of even odious groups such as the neo-Nazis in Skokie, Illinois?

The American Civil Liberties Union condemns Facebook's censorship, cautioning that "every time Facebook makes the choice to remove content, a single company is exercising an unchecked power to silence."

The ACLU warns that conservatives are the targets now but next time, it could be different. James Esseks, director of the ACLU's LGBT and HIV Project, explains that censorship threatens "the movements of the future that are still striving to be heard."

The fact is, internet platforms are more than just private companies. They've become like public utilities. We are just as dependent on Facebook and Google as on the local electric company. ConEdison can't deny us service because of our political views. Facebook shouldn't be allowed to either.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once explained that under our Constitution, the only acceptable remedy for evil speech is "more speech, not enforced silence." Government must not limit who speaks in the public square.

Google, Facebook, Twitter and others  though private sector companies  are the new public square.

Don't count on Congress to fix the problem while Democrats control the House. They're on the side of the censors. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., is railing that social media companies are not doing enough to "counter" what he calls "vitriolic hate messages."

Instead, expect the courts to step in. Last fall, a conservative nonprofit called Freedom Watch sued Facebook, Google, Twitter and Apple for suppressing "politically conservative content." It's plausible judges will rule that allowing social media platforms to censor political speech destroys the freedom of the public square.

Congressional Democrats are still whining about Russian meddling on the internet. Truth is, less than 0.00008 (eight one hundred thousandths) of the total political tweets during the 2016 contest originated with Russian intelligence.

The biggest threat to a legitimate outcome in 2020 is not foreign interference; it's left-leaning social media giants tilting the election by silencing viewpoints they don't like. It's already happening.


Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York State. 
COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

Related Articles :
Question of the Week   
On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by terrorists using which one of the following?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"An FBI assistant to James Comey says in a book released Tuesday that the former FBI director took advantage of the 'chaos' of the early Trump administration to set up an interview with Michael Flynn, the national security adviser.Josh Campbell, who was Comey's personal assistant at the FBI, writes in 'Crossfire Hurricane: Inside Donald Trump's War on the FBI,' that FBI leadership had 'intense discussion…[more]
 
 
—Chuck Ross, Daily Caller
— Chuck Ross, Daily Caller
 
Liberty Poll   

Is the desire to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan in conflict with the lessons of September 11, 2001?