Patriot,

Over the past several years, the federal government has engaged
in what a judge described as "the most massive attack against
free speech in United States' history."

And the victims of this censorship campaign have been - of course
- those of us who dissent from the political establishment's
lies.

This makes it all the more aggravating when people use
libertarian arguments to argue in favor of Big Tech censorship.

But as I explain in my most recent column - read it below - Big
Tech censorship is not a product of a free market, but of the
government itself.

I propose two solutions to government censorship.

First, a law to make it a crime for government employees to use
his position in order to censor speech online.

And second, a call for us to actively support free speech
alternatives to the censorious mainstream platforms.

Of course, supporting voices of dissent online means supporting
the speakers as well as the platform. If you support Campaign for
Liberty's efforts to defend and restore free speech on the
Internet, please support Campaign for Liberty with a
contribution.
[link removed]

For Liberty,

Ron Paul

Separate Tech and State

Some libertarians dismiss concerns over social media companies'
suppression of news and opinions that contradict select agendas
by pointing out that these platforms are private companies, not
part of the government. There are two problems with this
argument.

First, there is nothing un-libertarian about criticizing private
businesses or using peaceful and voluntary means, such as
boycotts, to persuade businesses to change their practices.

The second and most significant reason the "they are private
companies" argument does not hold water is the tech companies'
censorship has often been done at the "request" of government
officials. The extent of government involvement with online
censorship was revealed in emails between government and
employees of various tech companies. In these emails the
government officials addressed employees of these "private
companies" as though these employees were the government
officials' subordinates.

Government officials using their authority to silence American
citizens is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Yet some
conservative elected officials and writers think the solution to
the problem of big tech censorship is giving government more
power over technology companies.

These pro-regulation conservatives ignore the fact that it would
be just as unconstitutional if a conservative administration was
telling tech companies who they must allow to access their
platforms as it is when progressives order social media companies
to deplatform certain individuals. Furthermore, since the average
government official's political views are closer to Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez than to Marjorie Taylor Greene, giving government
more power over social media companies is likely to lead to more
online censorship of conservatives.

Instead of giving government more power over social media,
defenders of free speech should work to separate tech and state.


An excellent place to start is pushing for passage of the Free
Speech Protection Act. Unlike other legislation, such as the
PATRIOT Act and the Affordable Care Act, this bill is accurately
named.

Introduced by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and Ohio Representative
Jim Jordan, this bill makes it a crime for any federal employee
or employee of a federal contractor to use his position to
communicate with a social media company to interfere with any
American's exercise of First Amendment protected rights.
Violators of this law would face fines of at least 10,000 dollars
as well as suspension, demotion, or even termination and a
lifetime ban from working with the federal government.

In addition to working to pass the Free Speech Protection Act,
those who object to the big technology companies' "content
moderation" policies should abandon big tech for more free speech
friendly platforms. Many of the newer social media companies were
started to meet the demand for a "content moderation"-free
alternative to the dominant companies.

Rand himself stopped posting videos on YouTube because of its
suppression of free speech. While my Liberty Report still airs on
YouTube, its main platform is Rumble. It is wonderful to do a
show on any topic I choose without worrying about being canceled.


Big tech censorship is a problem created by big government. The
solution lies not with giving government more power but with
separating tech and state. Passing the Free Speech Protection Act
and making big tech pay a price for cooperating with big
government by leaving to use sites like Rumble are two excellent
places to start.
[link removed]


If you'd prefer to donate via PayPal, please click here.
[link removed]

Join Ron Paul's Patriot Club with a monthly contribution! Your
support sustains our work and members are automatically entered
to receive special giveaways autographed by Ron Paul.
[link removed]

If you would like to make a donation by mail, please send your
check to Campaign for Liberty, PO Box 104, Lake Jackson TX 77566
or you can call 703-865-7162.

The mission of Campaign for Liberty is to promote and defend the
great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional
government, sound money, free markets, and a constitutional
foreign policy, by means of education, issue advocacy, and
grassroots mobilization.

© Campaign for Liberty, 2012. Paid for by Campaign for Liberty
and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Because of Campaign For Liberty's tax-exempt status under IRC
Sec. 501(C)(4) and its state and federal legislative activities,
contributions are not tax deductible as charitable contributions
(IRC § 170) or as business deductions (IRC §
162(e)(1)).

www.CampaignForLiberty.org


This message was intended for: [email protected]
You were added to the system June 27, 2019 [More information].
Update your preferences | Unsubscribe

----Powered by Paramount Communication----
[link removed]