Home 2021 Big Tech Declares War on the First Amendment

Big Tech Declares War on the First Amendment

by S. Jack Heffernan Ph.D

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment

But Big Tech is more powerful then any Government and they have decided otherwise.


Twitter said Friday it has permanently suspended President Donald Trump’s account, citing the “risk of further violence” following the assault on the US Capitol by his supporters, but did not take such action during the BLM and Antifa riots.

Twitter and Google announce plans to censor - Waging Nonviolence | Waging  Nonviolence

“After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account,” Twitter said in a blog post explaining its decision, “we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”

Pin on Donald Trump

Twitter — Trump’s favorite — blocked him for 12 hours after the deadly attack on the US Capitol on Wednesday and threatened, yes, threatened the President of the United States, permanent suspension if he continued breaking its rules.

Trump returned to Twitter late Thursday, posting a video message that seemed aimed at calming tensions after the mayhem caused by his supporters.

Chart: The State Of World Press Freedom | Statista
The USA Should be as Red as China, Freedom of Speech is Dead

He acknowledged his presidency was ending and promised a smooth transition to Joe Biden, although he did not go so far as to congratulate or even say the name of his successor.

Twitter said at the time it was continuing to watch Trump’s social media activity to determine whether further action was needed.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey's Real Crime? This Shirt

The decision to suspend Trump’s account came after a pair of tweets on Friday, according to the one-to-many messaging platform.

In one of the tweets, Trump vowed that none of his supporters would be “disrespected” and in another he said he would not be attending Biden’s inauguration on January 20, as is customary.

Twitter Jack, “Controlling the Conversation” – Grrr Graphics

“These two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks,” Twitter said.

The company determined the tweets violated its “Glorification of Violence Policy” and that “user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service.”

Jack Dorsey | SA-News.com

Twitter confirmed that several hundred employees signed a letter to chief executive Jack Dorsey saying they were disturbed by the “insurrection” carried out by Trump supporters who had been rallied by the president.

The employees called for Twitter to assess the role its platform played in Wednesday’s events.

Twitter first tried claiming that they couldn't share the NYP story due to  a "hacked materials" policy, then Jack Dorsey claimed that was a mistake.  But then they still claimed it violated

“Twitter encourages an open dialogue between our leadership and employees, and we welcome our employees to express their thoughts and concerns in whichever manner feels right to them,” a company spokesperson said of the letter.

In short Twitter will decide who can protest, not the President or the Government.


Google said Friday it had pulled the Parler app from its mobile store for allowing “egregious content” that could incite deadly violence like that seen at the US Capitol, Google were active playing down the BLM and Antifa riots.

Google's New Search Protocol Is Restricting Access to 13 Leading Socialist,  Progressive and Anti-war Web Sites - Global Research

The Parler social network has become a haven for free speech personalities who say they have been censored by other social media platforms.

“We’re aware of continued posting in the Parler app that seeks to incite ongoing violence in the US,” Google said in a response to an AFP inquiry.

“For us to distribute an app through Google Play, we do require that apps implement robust moderation for egregious content,” the company added, referring to its shop for digital content tailored for Android-powered devices.

Bill of Rights: 1st Amendment. Read my previous article concerning… | by MA  Redpine | Medium

Policies and enforcement practices that curb posts inciting violence are agreed to by app developers whose software is made available at Google Play, according to the Silicon Valley internet titan.

“In light of this ongoing and urgent public safety threat, we are suspending the app’s listings from the Play Store until it addresses these issues,” Google said.

Apple has reportedly warned Parler that its software could be removed from the App Store if it doesn’t take measures to prevent users from planning illegal, violent activities on the platform such as the deadly attack in Washington.

1st Amendment | Cartoon | mtexpress.com

Conservatives backing President Donald Trump’s claims of election malfeasance have sparked a migration to alternative social media sites that have refrained from filtering unverified claims.

The shift has boosted free speech favorites like Parler, Newsmax and Rumble, which have rejected Facebook and Twitter’s approach of setting fir to the Constitution.

Big Tech Censorship - Point of View - Point of View

Facebook and Twitter banned Trump accounts Friday due to fear he would use them to instigate another attack such as the one in the nation’s capital on Wednesday, they believe they are now in control of what can and can not be said.

Sites like Parler have attracted Republican lawmakers as well as the Trump campaign.

As they have become increasingly important to the political conversation, Twitter and Facebook have struggled with manipulation and misinformation, while at the same time seeking to keep their platforms open to a variety of viewpoints.

Free Speech in Schools

Report: 88% of universities restrict expression — and online classes are especially dangerous for student speech

by FIRE December 8, 2020

  • As Zoom classes replace the quad, half of surveyed colleges maintain policies that impermissibly restrict online speech — including almost 200 public institutions
  • National survey of 478 institutions finds 9 in 10 colleges restrict free speech in some capacity

PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 8, 2020 — Students may be able to find their professors and classmates online, but many won’t find their speech rights there. A new study by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found half of top American colleges and universities maintain policies that restrict online expression protected under First Amendment standards, and 9 in 10 restrict speech on campus.

Spotlight on Speech Codes 2021: The State of Free Speech on Our Nation’s Campuses analyzes the written policies at 478 of America’s top colleges and universities for their protection of free speech. The report finds 88% of American colleges maintain policies that restrict — or could be interpreted to restrict — expression. 



“These policies have real-world consequences,” said Laura Beltz, author of the report and a senior program officer for policy reform at FIRE. “Students and professors around the country face punishment for speech that is clearly protected by the First Amendment or a school’s free speech promises.”

For example, a student at New Jersey’s Stockton University faced possible suspension, a fine, and a mandatory “social justice workshop” after using a photo of President Donald Trump as his Zoom background, which the university claimed caused other students to feel “offended, disrespected, and taunted.” That, combined with a Patrick Henry-esque political post on Facebook, led the university to charge the student with six policy violations, including harassment and “cyberbullying,” before FIRE’s public involvement caused the university to back down.

Stockton is just one of almost 200 public institutions that maintain online speech policies that run afoul of the First Amendment. Consider also the University of Colorado Denver’s policy banning students from sending or storing emails with messages that could be “considered offensive.” And on the private institution side, Fordham University maintains a policy banning the use of any IT resource — even off campus — “to intimidate, insult, embarrass, or harass others.” Speech that meets the legal standard for intimidation or that is included in unlawful harassment is not protected under First Amendment standards, but banning online speech that might “insult” or “embarrass” others includes a great deal of protected speech. 

While only public institutions are legally bound to uphold students’ First Amendment rights, private institutions are bound by their promises of free expression.

All of the policies analyzed in the report are accessible in FIRE’s Spotlight Database. FIRE rates schools as “red light,” “yellow light,” or “green light” institutions based on how much speech protected by the First Amendment their policies restrict in a number of categories, including protest, online speech, harassment, and civility. 

Just over a fifth of institutions — 21% — received an overall red light rating, FIRE’s lowest rating, for maintaining speech codes that both “clearly and substantially” restrict freedom of speech. This reflects a 3-point drop from last year’s report.

Alarmingly, red light schools still make up at least half of FIRE-rated institutions in the District of Columbia and 7 states: Alaska, Delaware, Illinois, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wyoming. 

Only 12% of institutions nationwide (56 schools) do not maintain any policies that compromise student expression, earning FIRE’s highest, green light rating. This total is up significantly from only 2% in 2009. Meanwhile, the number of institutions earning a yellow light rating is swelling: from 21% in 2009 to 65% today. While less restrictive than red light policies, yellow light policies still prohibit, or have an impermissible chilling effect on, constitutionally protected speech. (Just ask the Stockton student.)

“We’ve offered to help every college in this report craft speech-protective policies, but most decided to carry on with their censorship,” said Beltz. “We encourage prospective students who want to engage in vigorous debate and discussion to keep in mind the 56 institutions that earn FIRE’s top rating. But if they decide to enroll elsewhere, we’re here to help.”


The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of students and faculty members at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of liberty.

You may also like


Your Trusted Source for Capital Markets & Related News

© 2024 LiveTradingNews.com – For The Traders, By The Traders – All Right Reserved.

The information contained on this website shall not be construed as (i) an offer to purchase or sell, or the solicitation of an offer to purchase or sell, any securities or services, (ii) investment, legal, business or tax advice or an offer to provide such advice, or (iii) a basis for making any investment decision. An offering may only be made upon a qualified investor’s receipt not via this website of formal materials from the Knightsbridge an offering memorandum and subscription documentation (“offering materials”). In the case of any inconsistency between the information on this website and any such offering materials, the offering materials shall control. Securities shall not be offered or sold in any jurisdiction in which such offer or sale would be unlawful unless the requirements of the applicable laws of such jurisdiction have been satisfied. Any decision to invest in securities must be based solely upon the information set forth in the applicable offering materials, which should be read carefully by qualified investors prior to investing. An investment with Knightsbridge is not suitable or desirable for all investors; investors may lose all or a portion of the capital invested. Investors may be required to bear the financial risks of an investment for an indefinite period of time. Qualified investors are urged to consult with their own legal, financial and tax advisors before making any investment. Knightsbridge is a private investment firm that offers investment services to Qualified Investors, Members and Institutions ONLY. Qualified Investors are defined as individuals who have met those Qualifications in the relevant jurisdictions. Members are defined as individuals who have been accepted into the Knightsbridge membership program. Institutions are defined as entities such as banks, pension funds, and hedge funds. If you are not a Qualified Investor, Member or Institution, you are not eligible to invest with Knightsbridge. All investments involve risk, and there is no guarantee of profit. You may lose some or all of your investment. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Knightsbridge is not a registered investment advisor, and this disclaimer should not be construed as investment advice. Please consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. By accessing this website, you agree to the terms of this disclaimer. Thank you for your interest in Knightsbridge.