Under U.S. law, some essential rights of the 14th amendment belong not only to American citizens, but also corporations—thanks to a few key Supreme Court cases and a controversial legal concept known as corporate personhood.
How the 14th Amendment Made Corporations Into ‘People’
Related:
‘Corporations Are People’ Is Built on an Incredible 19th-Century Lie
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | May 17, 2022
In the wake of a mass shooting in Buffalo, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went on ABC to advocate for “balance between free speech and safety.” She did not specify how this balance might be achieved, or who would have the last word in defining it.
Nancy Pelosi says there needs to be a “balance” to free speech
As much as the National Republican Senatorial Committee would like Republicans to stay away from the abortion issue except to insist they are compassionate and caring about life, it isn’t really working. That line is hardly a natural fit for a party that had a collective hysterical tantrum against Barack Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act and proposes taxing the poor anyway. They are the “Fuck Your Feelings” party, after all, not the empathy and mercy crowd.
Republicans aren’t even bothering to lie about it anymore. They are now coming for birth control
Smart War Disinformation and the U.S. Military State
Should the elimination of citizens’ right to free speech by the government proceed, backed up by the threat of punishment, then no dissenter anywhere will be able to challenge official narratives without risking the fate suffered by U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. A formerly moderate Muslim cleric who spoke out publicly against the crimes of September 11, 2001, al-Awlaki was executed in 2011 without indictment or trial, having been put on the drone killers’ hit list when he began speaking out against the U.S. government’s own war crimes.
By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | April 26, 2022
The White House continued pressuring the tech giants to censor content that it deems to be “misinformation” yesterday by throwing its support behind the use of Section 230 and antitrust reforms to combat misinformation.
Biden regime wants private companies to censor online speech
By James Risen
My Life as a New York Times Reporter in the Shadow of the War on Terror
The Biggest Secret
Related:
Was Jeffrey Sterling Trial a Gov’t Effort to Divide Investigative Journalists & Whistleblowers?
It is an uncontroversial matter of public record that the U.S. government sponsored the 2014 coup in Ukraine, writes Ben Norton.
NYT Smears Journalist, Calls 2014 Ukraine Coup ‘Conspiracy Theory’ (Archived)
Related:
I feel like I keep needing to write this, but once again, no matter who does it and no matter which company they’re targeting, it’s wrong for politicians to promise to punish companies for their speech. For some reason, many people’s position on this point changes based on whether or not they like or dislike the politician, and whether or not they like or dislike the company. But it’s wrong.
It’s wrong when Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee go after Major League Baseball for its speech. It’s wrong when Senator Elizabeth Warren threatens Amazon for its speech. It’s wrong when Senator Marsha Blackburn (and a ton of others) threaten Disney for its speech. It’s wrong when White House officials threaten Facebook for its speech. And it’s wrong when Rep. Ken Buck threatens Apple for its speech.
All of this is grandstanding nonsense, but it’s designed to suppress speech. It’s designed to punish companies for speech that these elected officials dislike. And that’s even if the companies have said something stupid or acted in a way that deserves a regulatory response. By positioning any response as retaliation for speech, these politicians are fundamentally going against the 1st Amendment.
It’s Wrong For Politicians To Announce Plans To Punish Companies For Speech, No Matter Who Does It
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 
You must be logged in to post a comment.