Press Dishonesty and the Riots – Past and Future

As the United States has become violently divided by opposing political ideologies, the speech by either side can certainly be offensive to the other.

Today the United States is racing toward riots – everywhere! The “social” media continues to claim protection for their political speech censorship under a clearly abused regulation called section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. “Communications Decency,” is a perfect example of misleading language to deceive the public into accepting another flanking attack on the Constitution and our Bill of Rights..

For those readers who may have heard of Section 230 in the recent news but were not really sure what it had to do with censorship, here is a very brief description of this 1996 law.

In the very early stages of social media platforms the idea that the companies that owned the platforms could be held liable for something one of their subscribers posted was argued to be unacceptable. Subscribers claiming 1st Amendment rights argued the platforms should not be allowed to censor their postings. Law enforcement agencies argued the platforms were potentially the venue for everything from sex trafficking to terrorists communications. And in the third corner, lawyers were salivating over the opportunity to reach into the potentially deep pockets of the platform companies. Section 230 was the compromise of considering all of these arguments. The platform owners were given immunity from liable suits for content published by “third parties” while also being charged with regulating the platform sites to avoid publication of what they were allowed to determine was “hate speech,” even though the Constitution protects such speech.

If that seems confusing, you are in some very influential company. President Trump and President elect Joe Biden have both proposed major changes to section 230. Trump has proposed limits on the protections where political speech is involved and Joe Biden has proposed eliminating the protections altogether in favor of broadening the platforms’ authority to regulate their content. But of course no one can explain what that means.

As they exist now, the social media platform companies are completely protected from liable suits resulting from content posted by those of us using the platforms. But these companies have also been protected from law suits resulting from content that they have not allowed to be posted or have removed. This is the where the first amendment clashes with the Communications Decency Act. Speech – in written form – that is absolutely protected by the First Amendment is somehow not protected from censorship by a private company offering a public platform for communication it decides should not be published.

As the United States has become violently divided by opposing political ideologies, the speech by either side can certainly be offensive to the other. Determining how to differentiate between hate speech and the opposition’s political point of view has somehow become the privilege of the media companies; including print, broadcast and the internet platforms. Perhaps such a trust would be acceptable if the media were as balanced as the political party support within the population. But the reality is that the media is dangerously out of balance with the population. The control of the media has become exclusive to those who believe government is the only solution to survival of everyone and everything. Political speech by the opposition can be and is considered hate speech by those in control of information distribution. Censorship of one party has become rampant while the other is given extensive leeway of content. This is the Constitutional crisis we are now facing. The media has become so bias for one ideology that crimes at the highest level are both ignored and called propaganda of the opposition.


This week spokespersons for CNN have repeatedly called for cable and internet providers to delete Newsmax TV and streaming services from their platforms. CNN justifies these calls claiming Newsmax has distributed “lies” about the election fraud claims by President Trump. The report published by concludes by reporting that during the years and years of the Russian collusion investigation based on a falsified document – proven to be paid for by political opponents of the President – Newsmax officials never called for the censorship of CNN for their spreading of false information.

Now we will need to wait to learn if the largest media – clearly supporting the various Socialists and Communist and other factions of Dystopian Utopia government – will support CNN and the right of the platform owners to “lock out” Newsmax for violating “their” polices covering hate speech they claim could lead to riots by the readers of such Conservative propaganda. These groups – aka Big Tech – have been given the permission to censor whatever and whoever they decide is publishing hate speech by the now infamous Section 230. Of course we have just lived through nearly 4 years of violence and property destruction by the armed forces of such organizations Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Yet these organizations and their offshoots went uncensored by facebook or twitter or other social media platforms. In fact these purveyors of violence were supported in the press, dignified by many in government and supported with money and action by sports and entertainment celebrities excusing their riots as necessary to effect positive changes in the name of social justice.

Trump called it War

politicians who spent millions of taxpayer dollars trying to destroy the President supported the riots.

To most Americans today the name Nazi describes a comical colonel and a no-nothing sergeant; not the horrific murderers of millions of innocent people considered inferior to their so called Master Race.

There are many descriptions of the purpose of war.

For thousands of years the purpose of war may have been to kill people and destroy things until one side or the other surrendered. The more resolved the opposing forces, the greater the destruction. It would seem the better the execution by the victors the less value of the spoils.

For The United States, the purpose and execution of wars changed when we created the atomic bomb. The destruction was too great a price to pay; even for victory. While the military continues to improve on the potential of its arsenal of atomic weapons, the resolve of the politicians to permit their use has all but disappeared. Wars have become a stage on which politicians perform to demonstrate their compassion for those with an opposing ideology. Compromise has been the ultimate goal of conflict by America since the unofficial end of the the “Korean War.”

But if one side in a war continues to believe victory is possible while the other side is willing to draw a line of compromise, it has proven over the last 70 years that those who believe victory is possible will in fact win the war. Such was the case in Vietnam when the resolve of the communist was to control the country while America was willing to settle for less as they had done in Korea. The communist prevailed and today Vietnam is a united country. They are at peace. Today they are not only a trade partner, much like Japan, they are a popular tourist destination for Americans while the divided Korea remains an adversary. Were these lessons learned?

Seeking compromise with people who have a strong belief in their ideology has led us to an endless conflict in the Middle East. But the reality is America lost the war against Islam on September 11, 2001. Americans lost freedoms and the American lifestyle. Instead of recognizing the massive destruction by an enemy intent on victory under the old rules of war, our politicians refused to acknowledge defeat. And so the losses build while politicians refuse to even acknowledge we were at war. Their arrogance has led to the spending of untold wealth seeking to reach a compromise with Islam. But Mohammed believed in war. His followers believe they can defeat any and all who don’t believe as they do. The conflict continues. One only needs to check the security lines at any public venue these days to understand how completely our freedoms have been destroyed.

President Trump successfully kept the United States from initiating a new conflict overseas during his entire term. But that doesn’t mean America was not drawn further into war. The President correctly reported to the people that America was under siege – we were at war. A war being waged in our homeland. A war being waged on three fronts; in the streets of our cities, in the leftist media in the chambers of government.

While political forces aligned to undermine the President and his election, subversive forces created false narratives about how unjust America is to – everyone who would join them in their cries for “social justice.” But no one can define what “social justice” means or who will benefit if it comes about. These forces gathered followers after each conflict with police was played up as another example of how unjust our laws were to – everyone who wanted “social justice.”

The violence and destruction grew. City after city surrendered to these anarchists demands for lawless zones where equality would reign supreme without fear of police brutality. The same politicians who had spent years and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to destroy the President and the Constitution with falsified documents and perjured testimonies joined the chorus of media and celebrities vocalizing support for the protestors’ riots while strengthening their defenses and boarding up their businesses to reduce their own losses by looters.

When the President called for Americans to recognize that these self proclaimed “social justice warriors” were in fact engaged in an organized war on America, his political enemies seized the moment to decry him as having a phobia against everyone except rich white men like himself.

After a year of violent protests, property destruction and widely recorded looters running unchecked as police stood aside, President Trump was defeated in his bid for reelection. Those who had used his presidency as their excuse for protests should have cried victory. The war should have ended with the democrats taking charge of both houses of congress and the presidency.

But the riots continued in the very cities which voted for the new regime of Joe Biden and the democrats that were so supportive of the social justice warriors. Why?

Could it be those who are financing these riots are resolved to wage this war without compromise? Will the new regime even recognize these protesters as warriors seeking conquest of America?

Trump called it war. Will Joe Biden defend America or join those intent on plundering her riches?