Episode 278 Show Notes- What Are They So Afraid of? Content Moderation is Code for Speech Controls
↓ The P.A.S. Report Podcast is on every podcast platform! ↓
Episode Description
As Elon Musk attempts to purchase Twitter, there are some who believe freedom of speech is a threat to the Republic. That in order to maintain democratic principles and ensure the Republic’s survival, content moderation is essential. However, content moderation is nothing more than speech controls where the powerful few get to determine what can and cannot be said. Rather than surrender our liberties, we should understand the original intent and the purpose of free speech and the right to bear arms.
Click play above to listen to the entire episode or you can listen on any podcast platform
Show Transcript- What Are They So Afraid of? Content Moderation is Code for Speech Controls
*PA Strategies, LLC. earns a commission when you make a purchase through any affiliate links on this website and within this post.
Intro
Welcome to The P.A.S. Report Podcast.
I want to say that we still live in the greatest country to ever exist. There are a lot of people who constantly criticize this country, but if you notice, I never criticize America. I never criticize the intent or the country as a whole. Rather, my criticisms are reserved for the government and the officials- both elected and appointed- not the country.
That’s an important distinction, and it’s important because too many try to lump the idea of America and the government together, but they are separate.
Many of us have forgotten that it’s our duty to always question the government and the officials in an attempt to try and keep the government honest. It’s our civic obligation to be skeptical of government and to be critical of those who hold power.
There has been a constant struggle since our founding trying to find the proper balance between liberty and order. Our founders understood that the more order within a society, the more power the government has to operate as a police state. Too much liberty and you create the conditions for anarchy and chaos.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania, one of the little-known founders stated it best when he said, “Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness” (meaning disregard for laws, rules, and moral norms).
That’s what I want to focus on in this episode. When we look at our God-given rights, they’ve been under assault for quite some time. There are many who have tried to redefine and reshape the conversation, watering down the true intent, especially when it comes to the First Amendment right to freedom of speech and the Second Amendment with the right to bear arms.
There are many who’ve undermined these founding principles, and due to a failed education system, where we don’t really teach about our founding, the original intent and documents, the Constitution, and the personal writings of the founding fathers, many have been too quick to surrender these principles.
See, our failed education system and the media make it as if the government is the country, and therefore, nothing less than compliance and obedience will be tolerated. When you question the government and its policies, they’ll attack your patriotism and loyalty to the country. They’ll call you names. They’ll label you as a domestic terrorist for expressing anti-government, anti-authority sentiment.
Before I jump in, make sure to click the follow button for this podcast so you never miss an episode and don’t forget to visit The P.A.S. Report website and sign up for the newsletter.
Don’t Burn This Country: Surviving and Thriving in Our Woke Dystopia
Why We Need to Speak Up
One of the reasons I decided to do this episode was all the controversy surrounding Elon Musk purchasing Twitter. Of course, the rejects go to the threat to democracy argument. It’s interesting because Elon Musk announced that he wants to purchase Twitter to restore the concept of free speech. Like me, he believes that platforms like Twitter are the 21st-century public square, and therefore first amendment principles like the freedom of speech should apply.
Those that oppose him argue that freedom of speech is dangerous and a threat to democracy. That content moderation is necessary. These people have a warped view of what democratic principles and this idea of democracy actually entails. You notice how they use the threat to democracy argument every time their social order is threatened, and they view the people as a bigger threat to the system, rather than the government itself.
Their logic is completely flawed, but it’s intentional. First off, they want to blur the lines between a democracy and the Constitutional Republic, which are two very different things. However, over the last century, they have used these terms interchangeably in order to undermine the safeguards within the system. See, if their amorphous definition of democracy becomes the norm, then they get to define it the way they want.
The word democracy comes from ancient Greece- demos kratia. Demos meaning the people, and kratos or kratia meaning authority and power to rule.
In one breath, they say the people should have the authority to rule, but in the very next breath, they argue that they are the ones that get to determine what the people’s authority is. That those in power will be the ones that decide what we can and cannot say. What we can and cannot see.
In order for the people to have more authority, power must be relinquished to the ruling elite as they are the guardians of this so-called democracy.
To them, Elon Musk is an existential threat to their power. Here is someone that wants to buy a social media platform to promote the idea of free political speech and the free exchange of ideas. I know it’s a novel concept to our overlords, but here you have a billionaire, who is a South African native, a naturalized American citizen, who has a better appreciation for our values and the American political philosophy than most natural-born Americans. And I suspect that’s the case with many naturalized citizens.
On top of that, he’s a billionaire, and he doesn’t have to kowtow to anyone. That’s why he’s such a threat. He’s someone with power that doesn’t have to bow to the established order. In essence, he can’t be controlled.
This is not to say that Musk is better or more important than anyone, and it’s not to say that I agree with him on every issue. There are some who want to place Musk on a pedestal, and others who want to destroy him.
However, when it comes to free speech, Musk and I are on the same page. I love the fact that he annoys the ruling elite and sends them into a frenzy. It’s hilarious to watch.
Powerful Elite Lose Their Minds
There is no better illustration of this than Max Boot. Most of you probably have no clue who Max Boot is. He’s a neo-con who promotes the established order where the ruling elite get to make the decisions.
He is very influential and has been involved in crafting American policy for decades, especially foreign policy. He follows the similar background of many of the overlords. He attended UC Berkeley and Yale University.
He bills himself as a Conservative that believes in limited government, but that’s a joke in and of itself. People like Max Boot have been responsible for some of the biggest policy disasters of the last 20-30 years.
To show you exactly what I mean where you have this powerful elite that promotes democracy, but really pushes authoritarianism, here is a tweet he put out.
“I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter. He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.”
Again, look at the keywords he uses, “democracy,” “survive,” and more “content moderation.” Think about how he ties these words together. First of all, content moderation is nothing more than a form of censorship, but he knows he can’t use the word censorship because that doesn’t sound very conservative. That sounds too authoritarian. Too big brother. He opts for content moderation because it doesn’t have the same negative connotations.
See, people like Max Boot try to lump everything together. If you don’t like content moderation then you support things like threats of violence, terrorism, pornography, lies, and propaganda.
Understand, when people like Elon Musk or myself are talking about freedom of speech, it’s not an anything goes proposition. We are talking about political speech and the free exchange of ideas.
This brings me to the second point. When it comes to content moderation, who does Max Boot want to be in charge of the content moderation, and who gets to determine what content is moderated?
Surely, he’s not talking about ordinary folks like you and me. In his version of democracy, we will entrust those in power to determine the levels of content moderation and what can and cannot be said. The people don’t get a say, and if the peasant class decides to post things that the powers that be don’t like, then that’s where the content moderation kicks in, and the censorship minions silence those who dare to go against certain narratives.
Now that the lines between the government, the media, and big tech have been blurred, people like Max Boot believe only the societal elite get to have this power.
You cannot be trusted to have a brain and formulate your own conclusions using reason, the ability to observe and analyze information to form a logical conclusion. You must be directed to the conclusion of their choosing.
Not What the Framers Intended
This is not what the founding fathers intended. They believed that the government exists only to perform those services that the people are unable to provide for themselves. The obvious example is national defense. See, government power, at all levels, is meant to be limited and enumerated.
Our founding fathers always knew that government was a flawed entity. When you think about who creates government, the flaws are pretty apparent. They understood that governments are manmade creations. Since human beings are the ones that create a government, our flaws are instilled within government, and while as human beings we have noble and worthy characteristics like virtue, prudence, love, compassion, and empathy, we also have bad characteristics like lust, anger, envy, jealousy, and greed.
We are flawed creatures, and while we may know something is wrong, we may still choose to do it consequences be damned. We are imperfect people, and therefore, anything we create will also be imperfect, including the government.
And when it comes to our natural human rights, the founders understood that the government could do two things. The government can promote the responsible exercise of human free will or the government can reject natural law and free will, thereby becoming a tool of injustice. History has shown us the natural inclination of governments and those in power is control.
This is why the founders sought to create something different. They wanted to create a system that would protect free will, and at the same time, be able to maintain societal order.
As Thomas Paine said, Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil.” We need it to maintain order and to provide for the things that we as citizens cannot do ourselves. At the same time, they recognized that government would constantly seek to grow and expand its powers. They also recognized that as time goes on, the people will make more demands on the government and be willing to grant the government more power and authority to tackle the issues. As government power expands, our liberty contracts and our sovereignty erodes.
It’s why our founders had such a distrust of the government, wanting to limit its power through the separation of powers and checks and balances.
The perfect example is the idea of content moderation which is nothing more than a form of speech control.
LOCKDOWN: The Socialist Plan to Take Away Your Freedom
Conditioned to Trust the Government and Bow at the Alter of Officials
And the people have been conditioned to believe that the government is the be-all-end-all. They’ve been conditioned to believe that if you’re skeptical of the government or if you question their motives and intent, you’re anti-authority, anti-government extremists. If I apply the Max Boot standards of today, our founding fathers would have been deemed as extremists and domestic terrorists. Oh wait, they were deemed that by King George.
Our failed education system never taught the intent of the United States. They’ve glossed over things like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. They were never taught what these documents actually say and mean.
They push the idea that the government only has good intentions. That when the government is doing something, it’s doing what’s in our best interest because we as individuals can’t figure out what’s in our own best interests. That all these people in charge, the overlords, only have noble intent. It’s why many of them act as the public virtue signalers where they, and only them, can protect this idea of democratic principles and the Republic. That they are the guardians of democracy.
What we are witnessing today is due to decades of social conditioning, moving away from the idea that our rights are inherent, and instead, moving towards the idea that government is the grantor of our God-given liberties.
It’s why more than 60% of Americans agree with restricting speech, and 51% want to amend the First Amendment. Almost 60% between the ages of 21 and 38 say that the Constitution, “goes too far in allowing hate speech in modern America” and should be rewritten.” And 54% said violators of “hate speech” should face jail time. (The Washington Free Beacon)
It’s why The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found more than 50% of students want to see educational institutions restrict “intolerant opinions.” (The Washington Examiner)
It’s why 66% of Americans want social media companies to remove “offensive” content from their platforms, and never once ask themselves who gets to deem what’s offensive and what’s not. (Pew Research Center)
It’s why 70% of millennials say they are likely to vote socialist. Only 57% of millennials believe that the Declaration of Independence provides more freedom and equality than the Communist Manifesto. 1 in 3 millennials have a favorable view of communism, and most can’t even define what communism is. (Victims of Communism)
These numbers directly correlate with the trends we see in our education system where only 24% of students are proficient in civics and government, and 12% are proficient in American History. (The National Report Card) These percentages haven’t changed all that much over the course of the last 30-years, and that’s why we see a lack of regard for actual liberty and our core principles.
The point is that we don’t teach real American history anymore. Instead, we see this push to teach a false history like the 1619 project. We don’t teach civics, government, and what it means to be a good citizen. Instead, schools are teaching political activism.
We are witnessing the results in real-time and that’s why the ruling elite have successfully been able to change what people’s authority actually means. It’s why people have continually granted more and more authority to the government at the expense of their own liberty.
They are constantly taught that America was born in sin. That it’s an unjust country, and the government has to be empowered further to overcompensate for these past injustices.
See, that’s the difference between me and them. Remember at the beginning of this episode when I said my criticisms are reserved for the government and the officials- both elected and appointed- not the country.
They criticize the country and the idea of America while promoting the idea that the government is the solution.
P.A.S. Report Listeners Get 10% Off at Design It Yourself Gift Baskets! Use Code: PAS
*PA Strategies, LLC. earns a small commission when you make a purchase through any affiliate links on this website and within this post.
Communist Chinese Speech Controls
And that’s the point. What they really want to do is import the Communist Chinese model of speech controls. That’s their idea of content moderation.
They actually admire how the communist regime of China has this unending authority to control what the people can and cannot say. What they can and cannot see. What they can and cannot believe. And the communist regime has been able to do this successfully through its content moderation policies, and the push for the social credit system.
Take Richard Stengel, a former Obama administration official, who calls the idea of freedom of speech a “design flaw.” (USA Today) He argues that because the internet amplifies voices, people should not be able to express their thoughts or opinions if that speech is deemed unacceptable by the powers that be. See, Stengel is a leftist, while Max Boot pushes himself off as a conservative, but they are both supporting and arguing the same thing.
They epitomize the ruling class and what they think of the people. Freedom of speech was just fine when only the ruling class had megaphones. However, since the internet gave voice to ordinary individuals, now freedom of speech is a problem and content moderation is necessary.
He epitomizes the ruling class and believes people should not be able to express thoughts or opinions that may go against a particular narrative. Remember, They will be the judges of what is deemed acceptable speech vs. what will be considered unacceptable speech.
When it comes to censorship, these power-hungry fools are calling for content moderation, in reality, massive censorship, of anything that goes against their narrow-minded point of view.
In a piece written by Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, he argues, “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong” as “significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in such practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with social norms and values.” (The Atlantic)
Here are influential people. When we are told to listen to the experts, these are the types of experts they are talking about, and I can provide endless examples of them all arguing virtually the same thing.
While they don’t mention communist China’s content moderation it’s the communist Chinese censorship model they want. Just look at what gets deemed misinformation/disinformation. Look at the narratives that are accepted, and which ones are rejected. Look at what posts get false and misleading labels and which ones don’t.
Most of the time it only goes in one direction. You don’t see crazy conspiracy theories like the moon landing, JFK’s assassination, or the 9/11 attacks get rated false and misleading. You don’t see those posts accusing the former President of Russian collusion get rated false and misleading even though the whole Russian collusion narrative has been thoroughly debunked. Even down to a couple of weeks ago, there were all these reports about White House call logs missing from January 6th, but this has been thoroughly debunked as well.
It is pretty evident that this so-called content moderation will be used as an ideological weapon to target political opponents.
Freedom of Speech, Not Content Moderation, Is Humanity’s Lifeline
Freedom of Speech, not content moderation, is the key ingredient when it comes to our Republic. Without it, everything crumbles. Benjamin Franklin said, “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government: When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved.”
You have George Washington who stated, “If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.”
It’s funny because the same people who despise the founding fathers and constantly denigrate them as evil white men are the same ones who will say that the founding fathers never intended for free speech to be near-absolute and that the government has a responsibility to regulate speech.
Whenever you hear someone say that, understand, they have no clue about what they are talking about and they know nothing about our history.
P.A.S. Report Listeners Get 10% Off at Design It Yourself Gift Baskets! Use Code: PAS
*PA Strategies, LLC. earns a small commission when you make a purchase through any affiliate links on this website and within this post.
Understanding the Second Amendment
It’s the same when it comes to the gun control debate and the Second Amendment. You have people that are completely clueless like President Biden when he says that our founding fathers never intended for the people to have military-grade weapons.
That’s completely false. In fact, that was exactly the intent of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment doesn’t exist for hunting, or even necessarily from a home invader. The Second Amendment exists to serve as protection against an all-powerful tyrannical government that usurps the people’s authority, becomes abusive, and forces us to live under absolute despotism, it is our obligation to overthrow that regime.
That was the sole purpose of the Second Amendment. Now, if you want to make the argument that times have changed, and we need to revisit this, that’s fine, we can have that debate. I welcome that debate but don’t lie and mischaracterize the intent behind the Second Amendment.
However, they are able to get away with it, again, because of a failed education system that doesn’t teach them about the American government and our history. It’s much easier to manipulate the debate when people are unaware of the true nature of the Constitution and the Second Amendment.
So, you have people that are too lazy to do their own research on this issue, and then you have the nefarious people in power who take advantage of those lazy people. The whole intent of the 2nd Amendment solely exists for the purposes of war.
When usurping power and authority, governments will be much more cautious when it comes to an armed citizenry.
They scream about “weapons of war” and that the Second Amendment refers to militias, not individuals. Again, all you have to do is look into the written works of the founding fathers.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, read Federalist 29 where Alexander Hamilton explains the idea of a militia. He writes, “this will not only lessen the call for military establishments but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist (Federalist 29)
Clearly, the militia is that of ordinary citizens. We as citizens are not subservient to the government and its officials. Thomas Jefferson understood this well when he stated, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
This is not to say that the founders encouraged anyone and everyone to have a firearm. While they did believe that we as citizens have a right to bear arms, they also believed that we exercise discipline and self-control. That you cannot overthrow the government because of light and transient causes, meaning that you can’t overthrow the government because of simple policy disagreements.
There are some who argue that the founding fathers did want to disarm society, and only allow those who were part of a “registered” militia to bear arms. This too is false. What they’re pointing to is a reference to a committee resolution pushed through Congress. They argue that this resolution states that anyone who didn’t pledge allegiance to the government could be disarmed.
However, this resolution doesn’t say that. It states, and pretty clearly, I might add, that those “who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who have not associated, and shall refuse to associate to defend by Arms these united Colonies” should be disarmed. (National Archives) It wasn’t about pledging allegiance to the government; it was about allegiance to the concept of the United States and the American political philosophy.
Own Your FREEDOM, Your HEALTH, Your WELLNESS
Peace of mind in a box - keep a Medical Emergency Kit in your medicine cabinet
Get 10% off your order Use code PAS at checkout
Our ruling class makes it as if the government and the country are one and the same. That if you dare to criticize the government and don’t offer blind allegiance to the government, you’re a domestic terrorist. An enemy of the state. But that’s only when you don’t comport to their narratives. When someone is in office that they don’t like, then you can be critical of the government all you want. In fact, they’ll say it’s your patriotic duty.
*PA Strategies, LLC. earns a commission when you make a purchase through any affiliate links on this website and within this post.
Closing
Remember, these people are frauds, and their lack of trust in the ordinary people is evident. They believe we exist to serve them and the state. They don’t realize it’s the other way around, but we are partly to blame and have to accept our share of the responsibility.
It’s been the hands-off approach that has gotten us to this point. It’s been the constant calls for the government to get involved in every single issue thinking that the government can solve all of our problems. It’s blindly accepting the idea that the government has to expand its power and capabilities in the name of safety and security through things like the PATRIOT Act.
Understand that when we allow the government to expand its power and authority in the name of security, it only serves as an illusion of safety and security.
I have a simple question to ask before you go and enjoy the rest of your day. If we do go forward with this idea of more content moderation, if we do allow the executive branch to implement restrictive gun measures, who do you think it will empower more, the government or We the People? Your answer will tell you everything you need to know.
If you enjoy the content I provide and find it informative, please take 30-seconds to write a review and leave a 5-star rating on any podcast platform that allows it. Also, hit the follow button so you never miss an episode, and don’t forget to share this episode with family, friends, and on social media. Feel free to tag me with your feedback.
The P.A.S. Report wants to hear from you. Send your feedback to podcast@pasreport.com. The P.A.S. Report Podcast appreciates all ratings and reviews on any podcast platform that allow them, including Apple Podcast and Spotify.
Please share this episode with others.
Follow Nicholas Giordano
You must be logged in to post a comment.