Google Images
[I'm not doing so good so I'm going to keep this short- but there's an element in the ongoing tech giant censorship of conservative voices that hasn't been addressed yet, but needs to be]
With the deleting of Alex Jones from many of the larger internet sites, fears arise that others will likely share the same fate... and this is almost surely the case. Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are all guilty of shadowbanning if not outright censorship. The excuse being given- discounting the outright lies- is that they are private companies and can cite their own nebulous "community guidelines" as justification. However, are these tech giants actually as private as they claim?
Enter In-Q-Tel... In-Q-Tel, formerly Peleus is a venture capital "community" working through the private sector for DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, of the Department of Defense. "IQT works side-by-side with the venture capital community to identify great startup technology for our customers. Our areas of interest include cybersecurity, biotechnology, novel materials, remote sensing, deep learning for data analytics, and much more." In other words In-Q-Tel is a mechanism through which the government channels taxpayer money from the DOD into the private sector to fund tech startups.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube as well as a myriad of other Silicon Valley companies have accepted taxpayer funds making them less "private" than they claim. They are in fact public utilities in the sense that the public (taxpayers) are in part responsible for their creation making them beholden to the same public to provide their services in an even-handed manner for all users, not upholding services for some yet withholding from others. The same argument would apply to a telephone company allowing service to individuals with whom they agree, but withholding from others they did not.
The same principle applies to shadowbanning... a telephone company cannot provide limited service because they disagree with a customer's point of view- they must provide complete service in an identical manner to all (consistent with whatever plan the customer chooses). The most prevalent reason given for the censorship- at least in the case of Alex Jones- is "hate speech." Hate speech, however repugnant, is protected by the 1st Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court:
The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
And again, Justice Anthony Kennedy:
A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Free speech is free speech and if it's to be meaningful it must be upheld in every milieu. For example, if I am allowed to speak my mind on the telephone, or in a public place, the same right must be upheld in an internet venue regardless of who is said to own said venue... like I said, free speech is free speech. It is also arguable that telling the truth is not "hate speech," but that's a subject for another conversation.
The point of this is that these tech giants, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google and the rest are public utilities... not necessarily because they fit the commonly cited paradigm, but because they accepted startup funds from the government, and that, ladies and gentlemen, means us, the taxpayer. Because internet platforms are public forums, all speech is protected... with the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" exception upheld in Chaplinski v. New Hampshire (1942). Moreover, the "my company-my speech code" argument doesn't work either... and here's why. Many of the recent SCOTUS free speech cases have been brought about by speech codes on college campuses. Because colleges and universities accept public funds, they are public forums... so too are internet platforms because, once again, they accepted public funds for their startups.
It's arguable that because In-Q-Tel is allegedly a private, nonprofit venture capital firm they don't fall under that same statutory guidelines. However, their investment capital comes from the government (mostly the DOD). They are no more private than a telephone company or university that accepts public funds. Instead of "my company-my speech code," what should actually be cited is "my money-my free speech." Another cogent argument centers around monopolies and the Sherman Antitrust Law. If any of these censorship cases should come to court- and they certainly should- there are a plethora of arguments that can be used to prevent this incessant censorship. Not the least of which is "my money- my free speech."
https://www.iqt.org/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.f44ddda716d8
