On Free Speech and Censorship

I was not planning on posting much this week about anything, but then I got news a couple of days ago that certain high-profile personalities - namely Alex Jones, Louis Farrakhan, Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopolous, and Paul Joseph Watson - were banned from Facebook because of their classification by the elitists who control Facebook as being "dangerous persons."  In a related incident, I heard about today, an openly-gay Pennsylvania legislator named Brian Sims was the topic of conversation because he was harassing old ladies and teenagers who were peacefully praying outside of Planned Parenthood abortion mills.  While perhaps what I am about to say would be more appropriate for my Sacramental Present Truths blog, I am actually writing here because we are talking about a fundamental right called free speech, and the ability of all to speak their convictions is one reason why I have these articles in the first place is something that personally affects me.  I want to examine the issue here in more detail and then add some "soapboxing."

Of the many high-profile individuals who were banned from Facebook, many of them are people I don't agree with on everything - Farrakhan, for instance, is a racist bastard and just a nasty individual all the way around, and while Alex Jones makes some good points on some things, he does get a little carried away at times with conspiracies.  But, despite how I or others may dislike or disagree with certain people, they also have the freedom (as I do) to speak their minds.  It may be disgusting, it may be fundamentally wrong, or it may be emotionally-charged, but it is still their right to have opinions and also the freedom to speak those opinions.  It also seems as if many of these "dangerous individuals" that Facebook and Twitter are trying to censor have behind that censorship a cadre of major media outlets (CNN, Buzzfeed, Huffington Post, and others) who are notably very liberal in their stands on things - Jim Acosta's shenanigans last year at the White House, for instance, as well as the whiney eunuch-man Brian Stelter on CNN (who resembles the sum of a romantic fling between George Costanza of Seinfeld with Minnie Mouse) or the overly-butch Rachel "Madcow" Maddow on MSNBC, demonstrate this well.  These corporate "news" entities are wanting to control the flow of information that Americans receive, and they cringe at the thought that independent venues such as Infowars, Daily Wire, or Mark Dice get more attention on social media than they do, and they perceive this as a threat.  In essence, Zuckerberg and the big mainstream media companies are no better than Josef Goebbels was during the evil regime of Hitler's Third Reich, as they utilize the same tactics and objectives honestly.  However, it seems that they don't appreciate the fact that equal treatment is a reality they cannot escape, and let me now elaborate on that.

Both the quasi-hippie CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey and the gawky Howdy Doodie-looking dorkish Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook both assert that their companies are privately-owned entities who have a level of exemption when it comes to the First Amendment.  While this "Billionaire Boy's Club" of Silicon Valley tries to make that assertion, their own radical political worldviews did not want to extend that courtesy to Jack Phillips in Colorado or to the Kleins in Portland, both of whose businesses went belly-up due to their refusal to bake a "gay wedding" cake on religious grounds. In the case of the Kleins, the way they were treated by the creepy lesbians was shameful - they were forced to fork over more than $135,000 in fines to the creepy lesbians, not to mention other costs that caused their business to close and also created a lot of distress on the Kleins as a family.  In the case of Jack Phillips, fortunately, he fared better, as he won his case twice despite the "gay lobby" and their progressive allies bullying him.   Let's look at this big picture though - Zuckerberg claims as a "private company" he has the right to censor conservatives who disagree with his worldview, but for some reason, that same right is not extended to Jack Phillips or the Kleins for refusing to extend a service due to personal convictions??  It is true money does talk, and in this case Zuckerberg is a billionaire while the Kleins are not even close to that level of wealth - so, his wealth secures his freedom to do whatever he wants, while the Kleins, who were struggling small-business owners who were just trying to make a living and pay their bills, were not afforded that privilege.  Welcome to 21st-century America, folks!

Now let's talk about our "friend" Brian Sims, the "lawmaker" from Pennsylvania who takes joy in harassing peaceful tax-paying citizens by calling them "racists," "bigots," and other pejorative names when they stage a peaceful protest in front of a murder-mill (oops, "women's health center") ran by the abortion kingpin Planned Parenthood.  It is fascinating that Sims, who is openly gay incidentally, picks on these poor people while he himself supports one of the biggest racists of the 20th century, Margaret Sanger.  Planned Parenthood is Sanger's creation, and she founded it to kill off people she thought were "inferior," which included Blacks, immigrants, and others.  Sanger also had a very willing fan base in her time in Nazi Germany, where Hitler enthusiastically lauded her eugenics agenda as it mirrored a lot of the atrocities he committed.  Yet, an old woman with a Rosary praying to save Black babies is somehow "racist" - what a world we live in today.  I would almost bet that if a full investigation were done on Sims - similar to the one they are trying to do on President Trump - it would be discovered that he may have illegally gotten a lot of kick-back money from Planned Parenthood, and that leads to a little speculation of my own.   Planned Parenthood is a cash cow for corrupt people like Brian Sims, and the reason they get so violent with people who protest the murder of babies is that it hits their bank accounts - Sims and others stand to lose a lot of Planned Parenthood was defunded of taxpayer dollars and then held accountable for its murderous activities, and the reason is that Sims and others like him are bought and paid for.  Despite polls and the formality of elections, many politicians do tend to buy their offices, and in the end, it is not the average American voter who determines the people who will represent them, but in many cases, it is corporate bigshots like Planned Parenthood, Jack Dorsey, and Mark Zuckerberg, among others.  Does Sims give a damn about women's health or starving kids??  In a word, no - Sims loves him some Sims above all else, and he is an idol unto himself.  This is why he harasses old ladies and teenagers - he doesn't have the fortitude or the integrity to own up to his own faults, so he picks on those who are truly making a stand and tries to belittle them.  It also proves something to us as Catholic Christians too - if Sims is that fired-up about a Rosary, then perhaps it is a more powerful weapon and the demons possessing him to know it.  It entails a lot of sacrifices to stand up for life, especially in this day and age - do you think that old woman was standing out there in the hot sun praying a Rosary purely because she enjoys it??  I highly doubt it - there are other things she maybe could have been doing, granted, but she chose to do this because she is thinking of others, not herself.  Sims cannot say the same thing - he is thinking about how much blood money he will get as a "donation" from Planned Parenthood, that money probably being the result of marketing human body parts for profit.  And, I bet if he were backed into a corner and compelled to speak it, Sims would have to admit it.  One day, judgment is coming, Sims - and I don't want to be you when it does!

That concludes today's rant, although much more can be said.   Perhaps at some point, I will do a follow-up to the issue and then elaborate further my own thoughts.  Until that happens, stay safe, and will see you next time.