Much of what we’ve long considered free speech, or simply just humor, is no longer acceptable to our robot Internet-censor overlords. Here are a few absurd examples of this censorship.
By Dr. Kevin Barrett
As Internet censorship rages ever-further out of control, content creators have joked that soon the only acceptable posts will be cat-chasing-laser-pointer videos. The way things are going, however, even the cats are starting to worry. There are so many instances of egregiously idiotic Internet censorship that no brief article could possibly even scratch the surface, so I will limit myself to a few cases that have recently come to my attention.
Comedian Adam Garrison makes his living—or should I say made his living, before the censorship hammer came down—poking fun at both liberals and conservatives. He lampoons a liberal character, Dan Myers, and his conservative doppelgänger, Rusty Myers.
Suddenly, for no discernable reason, and with no explanation, Facebook deleted his account, wiping out all of his videos, which totaled tens of millions of views. Simultaneously YouTube banned only his “conservative” Rusty Myers videos, but not his “liberal” Dan Myers ones.
Is YouTube run by conservatives who don’t mind comedians poking fun at liberals but can’t handle anyone ridiculing Trump supporters? Hardly. The truth is precisely the opposite: YouTube’s liberal owners, or their AI (artificial idiocy)-driven censorship algorithms, thought “Rusty Myers” was a real Trump supporter, and banned him on that basis.
On “BlackOpRadio,” Adam Garrison explained: “I think they’re trying to silence anything, especially getting close to the 2020 election (supporting Trump) . … As the Rusty Myers character, I always wore a Trump shirt in the videos, and they took it down because they don’t like people, even in jest, agreeing with President Trump.”
Prior to 1987, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to provide balanced coverage. Today, Internet oligarchs, who command audiences even bigger than the broadcast networks, apparently think they can ban anyone who even appears to support the “wrong” presidential candidate, or who otherwise disagrees with them in any way.
If President Donald Trump wants his supporters to continue to enjoy their constitutional right to free speech, he should consider ordering the FCC to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine. The new Fairness Doctrine for the Internet Age should make it clear that big social media companies must respect the First Amendment: Constitutionally protected speech obviously cannot be banned from the new digital town square of social media.
Better yet, Trump should order the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department to seize the big social media companies, which are illegal monopolies, and either break them into tiny pieces or run them as public utilities under the full protection of the First Amendment. The latter option makes more sense, because social media outfits are natural monopolies, like the Post Office, the Highway Department, the public schools, and the utilities that provide us with electricity and water.
Another example of the absurd overreach of the current censorship epidemic: On July 21, YouTube banned my interfaith dialogue with Doooovid, a Jewish American from Detroit who is one of the most eloquent advocates for his chosen faith. According to YouTube, we had violated their guidelines prohibiting hate speech, but there was nothing remotely hateful in our friendly, respectful conversation.
I can only think of two possible reasons why the video could have been banned. First, the word “Jew” occurs twice in the title: “Kevin Barrett asks Doooovid ‘What Makes a Jew a Jew?’ and ‘What Is Anti-Semitism?’ ” The same artificially idiotic algorithm that thought Adam Garrison’s “Rusty Myers” character was a real Trump supporter may have thought that only Jew-haters use the word Jew.
Additionally, Doooovid and I are both critics of Zionism. Maybe YouTube’s AI thought that anyone who criticizes Zionism and uses the word Jew is a suitable censorship target.
In any case, after review by actual human beings, YouTube upheld my appeal and reinstated the video. Unfortunately, this rare example of sanity is the exception that proves the rule.
While I was battling YouTube over the Doooovid interview, Vimeo suddenly banned my Internet TV show “False Flag Weekly News.” Their new guidelines prohibit “content that falsely claims that mass tragedies are hoaxes.” The word hoax is defined as “a humorous or malicious deception,” so telling the truth about the mass tragedy of 9/11—that it was a malicious deception— is no longer permitted on Vimeo.
The unfortunate truth is that many if not most “mass tragedies” are in fact “malicious deceptions.” Every war is a “mass tragedy.” And virtually every war is a malicious deception in that people are conned into going to war by lying politicians.
The Charles Manson murders and the Jones – town massacre were “mass tragedies.” And both were “malicious deceptions” orchestrated by such CIA mind-control specialists as Dr. Louis Jolyon “Jolly” West.
False flags are by definition “mass tragedies” based on “malicious deception.” But in post-9/11 America, are we allowed to say that?
Kevin Barrett, Ph.D., is an Arabist-Islamologist scholar and one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. From 1991 through 2006, Dr. Barrett taught at colleges and universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin. In 2006, however, he was attacked by Republican state legislators who called for him to be fired from his job at the University of Wisconsin-Madison due to his political opinions. Since 2007, Dr. Barrett has been informally blacklisted from teaching in American colleges and universities. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, public speaker, author, and talk radio host. He lives in rural western Wisconsin.