Short Summary
- The video segment discusses the government’s relationship with Big Tech and censorship issues.
- Independent journalist Matt Taibbi expresses disappointment with the Supreme Court’s handling of the case.
- Taibbi highlights the difference in perception between lower court judges critical of government actions and Supreme Court justices more accepting of government influence on Big Tech.
- Taibbi emphasizes the coercive nature of the government’s communication with tech companies and criticizes the Supreme Court’s lack of skepticism towards the government’s intentions.
- The video transcript discusses communications between the highest levels of Twitter and the government, highlighting government pressure on third-party platforms like Facebook and Google to censor American citizens.
- The conversation delves into potential government involvement in regulating online content, such as creating a department of misinformation or coercing tech companies in response to government requests.
- The speaker criticizes the New York Times for misrepresenting reporting on Twitter files and accuses them of promoting government censorship.
- The discussion then shifts to the perception of free speech as a polarizing issue, with some viewing it as pro or anti-Trump.
- The speaker discusses how some individuals and media outlets are willing to sacrifice First Amendment free speech principles to oppose Donald Trump.
- The conversation emphasizes the importance of values over political labels and the need to challenge establishment control of information dissemination.
Is it a “video”, yes. Are there other places that would be more warm to this kind of garbage? You betcha
One of them being ‘free speech’, they even mention a time where journalists would defend the right of holocaust revisionists…
Timestamp: 16:10
https://youtu.be/HAH8JPeQ-Lc&t=970
I was you know a kid and growing up were like the leftist lawyers at the ACLU and [Noam] Chomsky who defended a French Professor who was a holocauster visionist saying he shouldn’t lose his tenure even though he’s a holocauster visionist because the state has no right to dictate what is true and false even when it comes to Holocaust revisionism
You do know that is the problem they are talking about, people are labeled ‘far right’ just so they feel okay to ignore the problems we face in the US, ‘bury your head in the sand’, as they say.
Look let’s just be honest. People want the right to be mean and abusive, that’s it. Just couched in victimhood. Everyone should be able to say what they want but not try to say everything they can at every instance to evoke outrage.
