Twitter recently decided to ban political ads. Hmmm ...
Bradley Smith (Institute for Free Speech, Law Prof. @ Capital University)
had this to say:
Twitter’s new policy, and [Jack] Dorsey’s explanation for it, demonstrate a muddled understanding of the purpose of speech. ... By Dorsey’s logic, free speech should be allowed only when it is ineffective. ... He wants "regulators" to “ensure a level playing field.” Does that mean limiting the dollars that Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can raise online? Does it require MSNBC and CNN to give equal time to conservative voices? ... A primary reason why the Founders adopted the First Amendment was their recognition that we couldn’t trust government to decide what is “fair.”
You can hear Al Mohler's take on this issue here.
According to Jerry Johnson (NRB), "Silicon Valley
does not want conservative talk and Christian talk; they want to push
progressive and Leftist values. It's
just the fact."
CBN reports that,
The NRB wants Congress to hold [Mark] Zuckerberg’s feet to the fire over these allegations of censorship. They say there are five major questions he should answer, including how the social media juggernaut defines “hate speech” and how they respond to comments by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, who acknowledged that some social media platforms "routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like."
No comments:
Post a Comment