• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


Rand Paul proposes Free Speech Protection Act

Occam's Banana

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
37,840
RELATED: Missouri & Louisiana sue feds for colluding with Big Tech censors

Rand Paul introducing plan to protect free speech from government-Big Tech collusion
https://www.based-politics.com/2023...ee-speech-from-government-big-tech-collusion/
Jack Hunter (11 July 2023)

On July 4th, a federal judge issued an injunction against the Biden administration that would largely prevent government agencies from contacting Big Tech companies. The judge believed the federal government was dictating the kinds of speech that should be allowed on major social media platforms—a violation of the First Amendment.

Now, Sen. Rand Paul is following up.

Fox News reports that “Paul is expected to propose the Free Speech Protection Act on Tuesday, which would impose harsh penalties on federal employees and contractors who leverage their positions to attack speech protected under the First Amendment.”

In other words, instead of government agencies and officials manipulating or censoring your speech on Twitter or Facebook without worry, they would face some sort of punishment.

Including possibly getting sued.

https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1678524283138584576
9N75ATK.png


The story continued, “The bill would empower American citizens to sue the government and executive branch officials who violate the First Amendment of the Constitution, according to Paul’s office.”

Many on the Right and Left have clamored to end Section 230, which protects social media platforms from being liable for their users’ language. But many defenders of Section 230 have argued that doing so would essentially end the internet as we know it, with companies like Twitter and Facebook becoming even more censorious.

Paul’s bill does something different. Those in government who censor speech would be directly liable for violating Americans’ First Amendment rights.

Fox News noted that Paul’s office said his legislation “would mandate the frequent publication of and public access to reports on communications between an executive branch agency and a content provider. It bars agencies from using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions to stop the disclosure of illegal communications. Paul’s bill also makes sure federal grant money does not go to entities that seek to label media outlets as sources of disinformation or misinformation, and ends several authorities and programs that the senator’s office says threaten Americans’ constitutional rights.”

The federal judge who issued the injunction against the Biden administration last week, Terry Doughty of Louisiana, wrote in his opinion, “If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
 
Last edited:
Dr. Rand Paul Joins OAN to discuss Free Speech Protection Act – July 13, 2023

 
Dr. Rand Paul Joins OAN to discuss Free Speech Protection Act – July 13, 2023


This is probably a dumb question but are there any penalties in the constitution for politicians who violate it? I don't think there are. If that's true it seems like a flaw, politicians can just constantly violate the constitution if the only "penalty" is that whatever terrible thing they were trying to do just gets struck down.
 
This is probably a dumb question but are there any penalties in the constitution for politicians who violate it? I don't think there are. If that's true it seems like a flaw, politicians can just constantly violate the constitution if the only "penalty" is that whatever terrible thing they were trying to do just gets struck down.

There are no such penalties.

In fact, there are a number of dodges designed specifically to allow the government and its agents to avoid accountability for their violations.

"Qualified Immunity" ... "Absolute Immunity" ... "Sovereign Immunity" ...
 
Senate Votes Against Rand’s Free Speech Amendment

Democrats and Lone Republican Vote Against Dr. Rand Paul’s Free Speech Amendment in HSGAC Markup



WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee offered his Free Speech Protection Act as an amendment to S.2251, the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2023. The amendment would prohibit federal employees and contractors from using their positions to censor and otherwise attack speech protected by the First Amendment. The amendment would impose mandatory severe penalties for those individuals that violate this rule.

Unfortunately, several senators voted against Dr. Paul’s amendment, choosing not to protect Americans’ free speech rights, and the amendment did not pass. The final vote tally was 6 YEAS and 9 NAYS, and can be viewed HERE at the 1 hour mark.

“Americans are free people and we do not take infringements upon our liberties lightly. The time has come for resistance and to reclaim our God-given right to free expression,” said Dr. Paul. “Under my Free Speech Protection Act the government would no longer be able to cloak itself in secrecy to undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans.”



In addition to protecting Americans’ First Amendment rights, the amendment would also:


  • Require executive branch agencies to regularly publish reports that details their communications with content providers. These reports must be publicly accessible, and agencies would be prohibited from employing any FOIA exemption to withhold information related to these communications.
  • Ensure that federal grant money is not awarded to any entity that seeks to label media organizations as sources of misinformation or disinformation.
  • Revoke authorities that threaten free speech and other constitutionally protected rights.


You can read the Free Speech Protection Act amendment HERE.

A companion bill to Dr. Paul’s stand-alone Free Speech Protection Act has been introduced in the House by Chairman Jim Jordan.
 
Occam's Banana said:
Many on the Right and Left have clamored to end Section 230, which protects social media platforms from being liable for their users’ language. But many defenders of Section 230 have argued that doing so would essentially end the internet as we know it, with companies like Twitter and Facebook becoming even more censorious.

I remember when Trump was president a majority of people here on this forum wanted to punish tech companies the same way. Also using anti trust laws.

My argument was we need less government interference, not more. From what I remember you were one of the few that agreed with me.
 
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Madison320 again.

Many on the Right and Left have clamored to end Section 230, which protects social media platforms from being liable for their users’ language. But many defenders of Section 230 have argued that doing so would essentially end the internet as we know it, with companies like Twitter and Facebook becoming even more censorious.
I remember when Trump was president a majority of people here on this forum wanted to punish tech companies the same way. Also using anti trust laws.

My argument was we need less government interference, not more. From what I remember you were one of the few that agreed with me.

I did agree - and I still do.

From another thread:
Sic the states on the feds, not the feds on Big Tech.

And from yet another thread (emphasis in the original):
To put things in a nutshell: anything that does not involve the circumscription, curtailment, or reduction of government power is at best a complete and utter waste of time (and at worst is counter-productive and actively dangerous). Any legislation, course of action, etc. that does not aim at curtailing, reducing, or eliminating government power is simply not to be taken seriously as a "solution" to anything.

This is the way (emphasis added):
Many on the Right and Left have clamored to end Section 230, which protects social media platforms from being liable for their users’ language. But many defenders of Section 230 have argued that doing so would essentially end the internet as we know it, with companies like Twitter and Facebook becoming even more censorious.

Paul’s bill does something different. Those in government who censor speech would be directly liable for violating Americans’ First Amendment rights.
 
I did agree - and I still do.

From another thread:


And from yet another thread (emphasis in the original):


This is the way (emphasis added):


And those posts you made were before the twitter files. I knew it didn't make sense that the tech companies would be that biased on their own. Now we know the government was forcing them to censor.

I'm still not sure whether 230 is a good thing or not. I tend to think it's a bad thing. Either way the important thing is that it has to be all or nothing. Either all companies are liable for content or none of them are. The worst idea is for the government to selectively enforce liability on only the "bad" companies.
 
Back
Top