When Austin Knudsen isn’t writing articles for TTAG, he has a side hustle as Attorney General for the state of Montana that takes up most his spare time. You can read some of his contributions here.
It’s safe to say he’s a dyed-in-the-wool gun guy. That, along with a healthy respect for the First and Second Amendments, was the motivation behind a letter wrote to YouTube’s Chief Executive Officer Susan Wojcicki this week.
The letter was prompted by YouTube’s takedown of videos that gun dealer Jason Schaller had published showing how to complete a firearm including unserialized parts including an 80% lower. That activity, if you’re keeping score at home, is still perfectly legal in 45 states or so.
YouTube zapped the videos after a coven of some of the usual Senate suspects made veiled threats against the publisher if they didn’t sufficiently throttle back particular kinds of firearm-related content. In other words, federal officials demanded that a private company do what they can’t legally accomplish on their own via the legislative process.
Knudsen pointed out that the Senators don’t have the stones to sponsor legislation outlawing 80% lowers, “ghost guns,” or home made firearms because they know how unpopular that action would be and how little chance such a bill or amendment would have of passing.
Besides, they can always rely on sympathetic platforms like YouTube — that are run by people who revile the Second Amendment every bit as much as they do — to bend a knee to their demands.
He wrote . . .
…these Senators circumvented the democratic process and pressured a private corporation to do what the federal government will not. So long as YouTube acts hand-in-glove with federal politicians to repress constitutional rights, states will continue finding ways to reign in the power of Big Tech. It is past time that you considered the consequences of those actions for your company’s bottom line and withdrew your complicity from the trampling of rights disfavored by D.C. Democrats.
Given YouTube’s cooperation with the government to regulate and eliminate legal speech with which it disagrees, Knudsen then threatened state-level regulation of the platform as a common carrier if they don’t restore the content.
Here’s Knudsen’s letter . . .
Free Speech for utube. No free speech for u. Sounds nazi to me.
Whoa…a State AG is a TTAG contributor? Or is TTAG the beneficiary of his commentary that are sent out to the general online POTG for publishing? I find it interesting to know. Either way, it’s a positive thing. You can bet the AG (Bonta) of California won’t be submitting any friendly articles.
I’ve stated this before, but when YouTube began to show its TDS in full force in late 2017 or so, I made the fortunate decision to download every gunsmithing, restoration, disassembly/reassembly, and other videos pertaining to every make/model in my collection as I could find. From sources (channels) such as Glockstore, MidwayUSA, semi-professional amateurs, and even knowledgeable Southern “bubba gunsmiths”. I am soooo glad I did, because only weeks after I finished acquiring all the videos I had initially wanted and bookmarked, YouTube scrubbed them.
Ummm…sorry you’re treated like us ordinary plebes. I’ll get right on fixing yer problem🙄
Moving to Montana soon, gonna be a dental floss tycoon. Got to love Montana! Passed a law against your employer asking for your vivid vaccination status. Tennessee followed suit not long after, allowing me to keep my job.
“Moving to Montana soon, gonna be a dental floss tycoon.”
Just raisin’ up a crop of dental floss,
Rasin’ it up, waxin’ it down –
In a little white box, I can sell uptown…
So uh, where you live now?
Not in Montana. 🙁
But I am a Frank Zappa fan… 🙂
Censor Joe Bidens nose as and assault weapon?
What’s that about Montana AG?
“he has a side hustle as Attorney General for the state of Montana”
WOW. In Iowa we, still, have a utterly worthless, flaming marxist (redundant) as AG. Tom Miller has grown roots in the AG office since 1979. While employing an endless procession of Prog lawyers to undertake nothing but leftist projects. Never a responsible thing.
I think we will actually throw the prog SOB out next week. May take a Rep tsunami though.
Confused, here.
Isn’t the Montana AG a politician demanding a private company do what politicians have no authority to do?
@Sam, No, he’s reminding them that certain behavior as a public utility may bring the arm of the state to regulate their business out of existence if they continue to choose to limit the publishing of legal content, they then become a common carrier, like a trucking company that can pick and chose what it delivers in it’s trucks. Common carriers are regulated by the Federal DOT and many state’s DOT’s
“No, he’s reminding them that certain behavior as a public utility may bring the arm of the state to regulate their business out of existence if they continue to choose to limit the publishing of legal content, they then become a common carrier, like a trucking company that can pick and chose what it delivers in it’s trucks. Common carriers are regulated by the Federal DOT and many state’s DOT’s”
The Montana AG cannot make that decision, thus he has no authority to demand a private business change its practices.
The reason people bitch about content publishers is that those same people cannot attract sufficient funds to build a competitor. That means the message of the people complaining is not “selling” in the public square, or “the market”. In essence, demanding govt do what the offended groups cannot, or refuse to, do is a favorite of all political groups.
Note: today, Musk declared that Twitsville will continue to block “hate speech”.
You sound like the “build your own twitter” crowd. How’d that work out for Parler? They were the number one app with tons of momentum. What happened next? Big Tech colluded to deplatform the uppity tech company. And what were the consequences? Explain why they wouldn’t do the same thing in the future if they felt threatened by a competitor. Thinking the free market is the answer is a fantasy. There is no free market.
When a company censors speech on behalf of the government, that is a textbook civil rights violation. I’m amazed that you’re okay with this. Are you just playing devil’s advocate?
I see you are buying Musk fiddle playing!!!!
Joe Biden has already been called out on Twitter for his lies, for example, > Twitter fact-checks Biden claim on corporations making billions > https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/twitter-fact-checks-biden-claim-corporations-making-billions … and > Twitter adds fact-check to Biden White House’s tweet bragging about Social Security’s COLA of 8.7% > https://www.marketwatch.com/story/twitter-adds-fact-check-to-biden-white-houses-tweet-bragging-about-social-securitys-cola-of-8-7-11667400888
In the first example Biden claims it was 55 corporation, in reality it was 14.
In the second example it was claimed the COLA increase was due to Biden leadership when in reality its because of a law from the 1970’s during the Richard Nixon (a republican) administration and would have happened anyway no matter who was president after Richard Nixon. Oh, and the amount is also not because of Biden as its calculated automatically no matter who is in the white house. In short Biden and democrats claiming credit for something they had nothing to do with, a lie.
So Biden is upset about it some, that he was not able to use twitter to get his lies out to the very liberal majority who use twitter. Biden and the democrats were fine with Twitter, they rejoiced when conservative and republican voices were censored on twitter and drove a campaign to make that happen. Biden and the democrats were fine with twitter, until Biden and the democrat White House started being caught in their lies on Twitter when Musk took over and the democrats are suddenly concerned > Musk’s Twitter: ‘This is exactly what many of us were worried about’ (the ‘many of us’ being the democrats) > https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/31/musk-twitter-paul-pelosi-00064329 > and now the democrats are worried they have no place else to go to put their lies out on social media.
So now suddenly Biden is not so pleased with twitter > Biden: Musk bought ‘outfit that spews lies’ > https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-musk-bought-outfit-that-spews-lies/ar-AA13LaS6?OCID=ansmsnnews11
Democrats last year: “*smugly* Build your own twitter.”
Democrats this year: “Nooooooo!!!!”
“…they then become a common carrier, like a trucking company that can pick and chose what it delivers in it’s trucks.”
UPS is currently doing just that with 80 percent lowers.
I think we just might be surprised to find the current Supreme Court may be sympathetic to a lawsuit demanding carriers cannot discriminate what they carry.
Really piss off the Leftist Scum ™ and construct the argument that guns and gun parts don’t have to “ride in the back of the bus”…
“Build your own UPS or just buy them out.” -free market ideologue
80% lowers, frames, and gun parts ship through the mail just fine… better tracking, cheaper shipping, and less likely to be opened in route, too.
Worry when they start dropping hazardous materials shipping.
We ought to see if Elon Musk is interested in buying youtube.
“We ought to see if Elon Musk is interested in buying youtube.”
To liberally quote myself:
“Note: today, Musk declared that Twitsville will continue to block “hate speech”.”
Did he define hate speech?
“Did he define hate speech?”
Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
Musk has a lot on his plate trying to figure out exactly what he has on his hands right now. I’m liking what I’m hearing so far as to how he moving people in from his other companies to help him out on this.
Let’s see what develops over the next year.
The louder the Leftist Scum ™ scream about Twitter, the more effective he will be doing… 🙂
Yep. It’s any speach he hates.
Knudsen’s letter I like. Follow through is important. He is absolutely correct though, not because of guns necessarily but basically that you tube has basically chosen to act as agents of government and Infringe first amendment rights aside from many more egregious actions.
That it’s a civil rights issue is where I believe we will be more successful. Draw blatant parallels to the Jim Crow era, and hit ’em between the eyes.
I believe St.Thomas when he wrote that the 2A is currently a second-hand right, and look what he has done so far – Strict scrutiny on steroids… 🙂
Our marxist socialist Soros’ bought and paid for AG in Washington state is probably getting his other Soros’ bought and paid for buddies to send their own threatening letter to Youtube to save democracy, you know!
@Dude
“You sound like the “build your own twitter” crowd. How’d that work out for Parler?”
Yes, I am “build your own”. It is the way things are supposed to work. If we cannot do for ourselves, then our message is failing…and that is our fault. Never forget Franklin’s admonition, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
“Whishin’ and hopin'” won’t getter done.
Sometimes “devil’s advocate”, but primarily iconoclast; I generally don’t do echo chamber. Regarding social media, the left didn’t take over in an instant; it took time and mucho dollars. Parler didn’t have deep enough pockets to survive.
As always, I ask, “Where are all the conservative billionaires? Why? Trump could have bought Twitsville, or Faceplant, or whichever social media outlet is powerful. Instead, Trump tried an alternative to all of them, but he was not “full-in”. Why?
Musk did not buy Twitsville out of his pocket, but through a coalition of sources. Why did Trump (or any other conservative billionaire) not do the same?
The left plays for keeps. The “right” just wants to be invited to all the cool parties.
‘“Whishin’ and hopin’” won’t getter done.’
Whishin’ and hopin’ is putting your faith in a non-existent free market, which by your own admission is ruled by the deepest pockets.
You didn’t address the blatant civil rights violation. Is the “free market” supposed to address federal violations or do we have a government for a reason?
“…non-existent free market, which by your own admission is ruled by the deepest pockets.”
A truly free market has no political boundaries, regardless of outcomes. Maybe a “fair” market is possible, but like “free”, “fair” is a subjective term. Without universally understood, and enforced, standards for “free” and/or “fair”, the biggest, most powerful entity rules.
The concept of “civil rights” in respect to private entities is a relatively new idea. The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to force “civil rights” onto the states, or individual, well, at least until the advent of the 14th Amendment, and warping thereof over time. If a government can force private parties, businesses, to become enforcers of federal law, or even so-called “constitutional law”, then we are talking something other than the US as founded.
If government can force/induce private businesses and persons to be agents, then government can compel speech, religion, and commerce to adhere to the politics of the powerful. Wanting government to vanquish our political enemies (and they are “enemies”) is wrong, no matter which party rules.
If we cannot build social media with power equivalent to the left, then we cannot prevent leftist government in all things, permanently. Having government somehow provide a “level playing field” to everyone requires a benign dictatorship. There have been none, are none, will not be one in the future.
We are coming to the end of empire; this is what it looks like. Delay is possible, but reversal is not the norm.
Sam u r…No matter how much you try to slice and dice it at the end of the day what utube has done is called Discrimination…The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things.
The AG sent a letter, the ball is now in utube’s court.
“No matter how much you try to slice and dice it at the end of the day what utube has done is called Discrimination…”
I discriminate against you, and countless others, everyday. It is legal, and there is nothing you can do about it. I read comments from whomever I wish, and ignore whomever I wish. The fact that TTAG is hosted as a public forum does not permit TTAG to force me to respond to every submission/comment. However, the owners/hosts of TTAG have every right to refuse me entry to their business establishment.
If I were owner of a shoe store, govt has no authority to compel me to provide every shoe made; I decide which shoes I will offer for sale, and if you don’t like the selection, the discrimination, there is no legal remedy available to you.
Everyone discriminates, in some manner, every hour of every day.
Asking, nay, demanding, government force a private business to publish my comments is compelled speech. The same as government compelling people to create/publish art work in their painting, photography, custom baking, that the creators do not want to be seen as endorsing.
No matter how you slice it, compelled speech is compelled speech. If that is what you want, you must acquiesce to being compelled to endorse that which you abhor.
The whole thing about social media is that “right/good/fair/free/illegal” depends on whose ox is being gored. Be that way, if you like, but don’t presume to be different from/superior to your political enemies in how government coercion is to be used. It is truly all about power, and the use of it.
Sam indeed u r a wordsmith…What sticks is when discrimination interferes with the rights of others like utube has done. At that point a letter from an AG in regards to the matter becomes necessary. Try to understand what utube has done and is doing is far and above shoe shopping.
“What sticks is when discrimination interferes with the rights of others like utube has done. ”
Understand your reasoning, however….
No one has a natural, civil, or human right to demand their opinion be published through any communication avenue. Prior to the advent of “social media”
The public square remains the public square, a physical location, a venue where government is prohibited to block/compel speech.
To broaden the example from shoes, no one has a right to come into my restaurant, and eat their sack lunch, demanding i provide a table and chair from which to do so. You want to eat your sack lunch in a restaurant? Build one for yourself.
To extend your argument to government, to politics: every political event must accommodate the opposition (however many) by giving time and space during speeches, or general business.
If you want compelled speech, you must accept it also working against you.
So, what is your response if government tells you that you must stop selling a popular type of shoe, because they don’t like the style? Are you going to lose sales, due to pressure from government?
“…if government tells you that you must stop selling a popular type of shoe….Are you going to lose sales, due to pressure from government?”
Your scenario opens to a larger question: what if government bans the selling of any product wherein petroleum, or petroleum derivatives are used in the manufacture of shoes, and/or shoes containing petroleum elements of any sort?
However, your comment is a bit off point. No one has a natural, civil, or human right to enter my private property. I can make accommodations, but I can also declare you trespassing. This would hold, even if I owned every shoe store in the nation. Same for product offerings in my near monopoly; no one has a natural, civil, or human right to demand I provide a particular type of shoe. I may be required to provided handicapped parking, ramps, and easy-open doors, but I cannot be commanded to offer durable medical devices.
People on “the right” are all about private property…until they can’t get what they want; then, just like the leftists, people on “the right” want government to step in and coerce a private business/entity.
Note: the same people who made special conditions for social media to curate what would otherwise be a utility, are not going to move to reverse that legislation; political benefits of status quo are too great.
“Yes, I am “build your own”. It is the way things are supposed to work.”
“Separate but equal”, eh? How did that work out in ‘Plessy v. Ferguson’, Samuel?
Fvck that noise. My civil rights aren’t delegated to “the back of the bus”… 🙁
“My civil rights aren’t delegated to “the back of the bus”…”
We have no civil right to compel a private business to publish our commentary. Compelling speech by another has no authority in the Constitution, or Amendments.
I can stand in my yard, and speak on any subject I wish; you have no “civil right” to compel me to stop, or allow you to stand in my yard and speak as you wish.
No matter how you slice it, compelled speech is evil, regardless. Under your theory of “civil rights”, you can be compelled to “speak” the most heinous words, and sentences you can imagine.
Compelled speech is a two-edged sword; wrong no matter what. Even the notion that social media should be prevented from curating their content is a form of compelled speech. Indeed, under your theory, it seems presenting pornography to K-3 students is protected. Not sure you want to be that guy.
So, the government is censuring free speech. The democrats are bent on destroying the entire Bill of Rights it seems.
“The democrats are bent on destroying the entire Bill of Rights it seems.”
Zackly. Never doubt it.
Where it stands today: Dims – “You will do as I say – non-negotiable”. Republicrats – “No, you will do as I say – non-negotiable”.
Civil war.
Nonsense. Removal of existing content is censorship. Undoing said removal is the opposite of censorship.
Demanding removal of content, and demanding removed content be replaced are not equivalent acts. That is reality,and it is non-negotiable
Currently, one is a dem thing, and one is a pub thing. GOP and dems are not equivalent political forces, nor are they equivalent threats to liberty.
One insists that their fantasies are non-negotiable, the other insists that reality is non-negotiable. These are not equivalent positions.
And when the government compels a private entity to remove speech it doesn’t like, it’s a flagrant civil rights violation via proxy.
“Where it stands today: Dims – “You will do as I say – non-negotiable”. Republicrats – “No, you will do as I say – non-negotiable”.
Civil war.”
Maybe.
Q – Half of the population has been programmed to be irrationally-fearful of boom-sticks, who will benefit the most from exploiting that fear?
A – The ones who aren’t…
“Q – Half of the population has been programmed to be irrationally-fearful of boom-sticks, who will benefit the most from exploiting that fear?”
The current “civil war” is politics, and opinion; irreconcilable. The end will be a whimper, not a bang.
@Dude
“Build your own UPS or just buy them out.” -free market ideologue”
Using government to make people do right is the favored weapon of all ideologies. Government is never objective, even-handed, fair.
Civil war (3.0 if you are counting) is upon us (as from the founding).
There was a period when I was just knee high to a grasshopper, when political losses appeared to be the gracious thing to accept. For instance, “Bruen”.
Back in the day, the losers of a court decision accepted the decision, and adjusted. Today, SC rulings are defied without consequence.
Back in the day, NYS/NYC would not have attempted to evade “Bruen” by any means necessary. Today, that attitude is pervasive. We no longer, any of us truthfully, have interest in “agreeing to disagree”. Instead, we are in competition to be the most disagreeable.
Sam,
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the compelled speech/civil rights issue.
Let’s find some common ground using your own words:
“Without universally understood, and enforced, standards for “free” and/or “fair”, the biggest, most powerful entity rules.”
“We are coming to the end of empire; this is what it looks like.”
“There was a period…when political losses appeared to be the gracious thing to accept.”
“Today, SC rulings are defied without consequence.”
The question is what are you going to do about it? Your answer seems to be let the market work it out, yet you admit that the most powerful entity rules. How will the market correct SC rulings being defied without consequence? Whether you like it or not, we require a government. The reason our government routinely fails us isn’t because we don’t have a free enough market. They fail us because the people in charge are immoral. John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” James Madison said that our Constitution requires “sufficient virtue among men for self-government.” Do you agree or disagree with those statements? How does it relate to what is happening in our country right now?
Now we must discuss why the Right always loses. Republicans thought we should lose with dignity until Trump came along. Of course they hate him. Republicans don’t have fighters. We’re still coming off the hangover from the 80’s when the big corporations were pumping out the free market propaganda (think Cato Institute). The Koch brothers were never partisans. They only went with Republicans because Republicans went with them. Notice they didn’t donate to Trump. This hands off approach (which favors the rich and powerful) translated to Republicans gaining power and ….. doing nothing. When Democrats gain power, they use it to push their religion.
So what does this all mean? I believe we have to use the power of the government for good. We have to enforce the Bill of Rights. We can’t let the wealthy and powerful run roughshod over the population. Never in the history of the world has there existed such powerful and influential companies like we see in Big Tech. They make the old “robber baron” industrialists look quaint by comparison. But how can we trust the government to do the right thing? Answer: We stop electing immoral, passive weenies who are just there for the power and money. We’re in this position because Republicans didn’t use the power of the government for good. They were hands off except when it came to their side hustles. The NeoCommies will always use the power of the government to force their religion on the populace. It’s time to fight back. It only works with a moral government.
In this TTAG article, we have a government official pushing back against the NeoCommies, and you’re complaining about it. We should be cheering him on.
“In this TTAG article, we have a government official pushing back against the NeoCommies, and you’re complaining about it. We should be cheering him on.”
Kinda disingenuous to support a politician pushing a dangerous concept, even if it sounds good.
The left drift did not happen in one presidential term. Anti-leftists have had plenty of time to “sell” their/our message. Look where we are.
If we cannot win in the “marketplace of ideas”, destruction is the reward. If we must use the tactics of the left to defeat the left, let us openly admit that we are the other side of the same coin, and get on with it.
As noted, compelled speech is compelled speech. If we want to compel speech, then we cannot honestly object to the leftists demanding compelled speech.
“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”.
– US Supreme Court Associate Justice Louis Brandeis, 1927
Sam,
I love you, but you sound like a fossil. There is no “marketplace of ideas.” That ship has sailed. There never will be as long as people like you support the Leftist takeover of all institutions. There’s a playbook for winning. It’s the good guys vs the bad guys. You don’t become a bad guy by standing up to government coerced censorship.
@JRM
“I see you are buying Musk fiddle playing!!!!”
I like Musk (and his financial backers) as a disruptor, just as I liked Trump for the same reason; disruption is good for the spirit, and the arteries; that’s it.
In that vein, I am trying to disrupt the echo chamber here (and elsewhere). Attempting to showcase superficial thinking, and encourage others to analyze their ideas and thoughts. When you face an opposing idea, presuming opposition is trolling, or is leftist sophistry indicates a lack of rigorous examination. I am a 2A absolutist, but a political realist.
For instance, if a person wants to be inconsistent in their principles, fine; just admit it, and go from there. If a person wants to adopt the mechanisms of the enemy in order to push an agenda, fine; just admit it. (waging war on the enemy the way the enemy wages war can be an effective tactic)
In specific, Musk isn’t going to transform Twitsville into a right-wing/conservative/Republicrat captive publication/outlet. It isn’t prudent for people to cast such projections onto Musk. Just as it is disingenuous for us to turn to government to do our work for us, while claiming to be following the footsteps of the founders.
And lastly, push reality into the face of both the left and right. If we cannot gather enough political support and power to ensure our values prevail, that is our fault. We tend to concentrate on living day-to-day, while the enemy concentrates on acquiring absolute power.
Countering the leftists is hard, unceasing work. We either do the trench work, or end up dumped in the trenches.
@Sam I Am
“Attempting to showcase superficial thinking…”
you don’t need to do that. We have dacian, Miner49er, and Albert LJ Hall for that.
“We have dacian, Miner49er, and Albert LJ Hall for that.”
They are just vapid bots, challenging no one’s thinking, because they can’t actually think.
It is a bit of an echo chamber. We’re all here because of a common interest. Even dacian and Miner are firearms enthusiasts. Most of us also use the platform to blow off steam about the crazy leftists. TTAG is political. With that said, everyone is different. There are things to learn from the comments if one is listening. Your hands off libertarian type approach isn’t unique in these parts. I’ve noticed quite a few people here with that philosophy. I’ve disagreed with about every major commenter here at one time or another precisely because I’m not an ideologue or a follower.
“Even dacian and Miner are firearms enthusiasts”
Hmmm don’t think so. Just about everything they post shows them to be anti-firearms enthusiasts.
They’re both admitted gun owners. They will occasionally engage in non-political firearms discussions. Miner even owns an AR-15 with standard capacity magazines.
“Most of us also use the platform to blow off steam about the crazy leftists.”
Should TTAG be just a place to howl at the moon, or a place to exchange ideas and practical information?
Venting on current events just lowers the overall quality of conversation, demonstrating we are as depraved as our supposed political opponents.
Maybe Pogo was right, all along.
I was making an observation. I see you conveniently left off the part about learning from the comments.
MT Attorney General Austin Knudsen: why he’s pushing back against ESG investing > https://www.kxnet.com/news/state-news/mt-attorney-general-austin-knudsen-why-hes-pushing-back-against-esg-investing/
“The group is called the Net-Zero Banking Alliance and it’s a part of a campaign to effectively phase-out fossil fuels.”
I’d like to point out that the Net-Zero Banking Alliance also wants to phase out the second amendment by phasing out law abiding citizen ability for firearms ownership by controlling the ‘credit/debit card’ (and other) type financial instruments used to purchase firearms.
(note: The Net-Zero Banking Alliance is a United Nations-backed group of banks and money managers)
YouTube must ‘restore’ videos it censored after pressure from Democrats, state AG demands > https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/youtube-must-restore-censored-after-pressure-from-democrats-knudsen
You Tube is not owned by the public.
@Dude
“So now suddenly Biden is not so pleased with twitter…”
Situational “ethics” is a time-honored “thing” with leftists.
@Dude
“Democrats last year: “*smugly* Build your own twitter.”
Democrats this year: “Nooooooo!!!!” ”
To be a successful politician, one must be capable of being on all sides of a policy, simultaneously.
@Dude
“…you sound like a fossil. There is no “marketplace of ideas.” That ship has sailed. There never will be as long as people like you support the Leftist takeover of all institutions. There’s a playbook for winning. It’s the good guys vs the bad guys. You don’t become a bad guy by standing up to government coerced censorship.
I never support leftist takeover of anything. I do recognize reality…there is a market place of ideas, and our ideas are losing. Perhaps there are a thousand reasons we are losing, but fact is our ideas are losing the political wars. “Eternal vigilance” failed. Who is at fault? Those who want to be left alone to live their lives? Or those who unceasingly view life as a struggle for pervasive political/legal power?
“government coerced censorship” is a reflection, a consequence, a negative reward for the failure of our ideas. Nonetheless, coerced or compelled speech is wrong. If the only way historical American values can be rescued is through adopting the tactics of the left, then we lose the moral high ground (if ever there was any); we become that which we despise. However, if survival is at stake, fight the war any way you legally can. Unfortunately, to fight the enemy, using enemy tactics we must gain political power robust enough to suppress the enemy eternally; something to ponder.
The right of free speech prevents government from directly squelching speech. It does not permit government to compel speech. Nor, does anyone have a natural, civil or human right to have their opinion forced upon others.
In the end, anti-leftists must gain political acceptance of our ideas, sufficient to command government power….and hold it for more than one election cycle. It would be folly to think that should the Republicrats take over government in the coming election, much at all will change. Repubs are not interested in wielding power, but only using their influence to be granted entry to all the nice parties in D.C.
“there is a market place of ideas, and our ideas are losing.”
That is where you are very wrong. Our ideas are winning. Big time. Check the increased minority support beginning with Trump. Check out the historic Hispanic support we’re seeing now. Abortion? 2A? So why aren’t we winning? Because the Left controls almost every major institution in this country, and they aren’t afraid to wield power. Conservatives seem to be terrified of wielding power. That is why we lose. Have you read that TIME article I linked to where the commies are basically gloating over rigging the 2020 election? You should check it out if you haven’t already.
Also look into how social media is powering the transgender movement. You think they can push people into believing men are women, but you don’t think they have any influence over elections? There is no marketplace of ideas because there is no level playing field. It isn’t even close.
I respect that you’re a man of principle. It’s misplaced here in my opinion. There’s a way to win the right way, and there’s a way to continue losing with dignity.
Am a bit uncertain, here.
Early in the comment you noted. “Our ideas are winning. Big Time.”, followed by, “So, why aren’t we winning?”.
Agree that we have seen some individual point “wins” over the last two years, but “across-the-board”, as I think you meant, our ideas are not widely popular.
At present, we are amidst a civil war of words and votes. It is not only an idea war, but a societal/cultural war. The core of the culture are school children, and higher level students; i.e. the education system. Our almost total loss there is insurmountable. So it is that a single election cycle cannot turn the tide. From the education system comes the principles that guide the graduates in their future society. Leading to the question of whether culture/society change is driven from the top, or the masses influenced by education?
At any rate, the marketplace of ideas exists naturally, with the important factor being who controls that marketplace, as you note. If the only way to expand the marketplace is government compelled speech, is the marketplace actually open, or just temporarily in different hands?
But to the point, we have the culture/society created by the influencers, influencers we were unable to effectively counter, leading us to the remarkable position of claiming to need dictatorial government power to install acceptable speech.
The overall theme I posit is that using government coercion to enforce our vision of “right” is no different from the opposition’s similarly held vision of enforcing “right” thought/speech.
Is doing something unacceptable when done by others a proper means of protecting freedom? To get the power to coerce speech, we have to win elections over the long haul. Since 1857, the government has been unified 47 times, 22 under Democratic control and 25 under Republican control.* Yet, here we are. Apparently, Repubs haven’t reversed the drift leftward.
*https://history.house.gov/Institution/Presidents-Coinciding/Party-Government/
Our ideas are popular. We can’t win on ideas alone because the Left controls the message. They no longer win on ideas. They win on propaganda, peer pressure, and censorship. Therefore we will never win until we find a way to counter that.
@Dude
“I was making an observation. I see you conveniently left off the part about learning from the comments.”
We were having a serious conversation, then you devolved to vituperation. Why?
I, too, was/am making observations. Indeed, pointing out that venting is not actually providing any learning at all. As I said, adopting the tactics of the leftists is all well and good; we shouldn’t high-five ourselves as being superior to our enemy, just because we, not they, are “right”; our goals commendable, regardless of how we get there.
I must have misread it. It seemed like a lecture. Apologies.
“I must have misread it. It seemed like a lecture.”
Written discourse is a most difficult means of communication; lacking facial expressions, tone and volume.
Don’t ask how I know.
@Dude
“Therefore we will never win until we find a way to counter that.”
No argument there.
Which is why my recurring question, “Where are all our billionaires?”
As of today, I have not seen any door-to-door effort on the part of any candidate, in my neighborhood.
Until YouTube is considered a public utility, it can censor whatever it wants as a private entity.
Comments are closed.