How Censorship Nullifies the 1st Amendment

Share this page:

How Censorship Nullifies the 1st Amendment

October 30th, 2023 | by Gunner Steele

America is famous for the right to "free speech" and our 1st Amendment which guarantees us that right (amongst several other rights), is well known in literally all the world.

It is remarkable because the 1st Amendment literally states, "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech." That's it. It was stated without restrictions and without any disclaimers.

The obvious need for free speech is to protect someone's right to say things that other people find offensive. You don't have to protect speech when everybody wants to hear it. You only have to protect speech that people don't want to hear or that they don't want other people to hear.

You know, like when you tell people that the government is immoral and corrupt and is breaking its own laws. Or like when you expose government officials for their corruption, or for taking bribes (like Joe Biden), or for being pedophiles, or maybe you just decide to expose government subsidized child trafficking. People don't like that. So it has to be protected.

Or maybe you just want everyone to know that the bioweapon injection that they were forcing, extorting, and manipulating the public into taking is dangerous and harmful, that it is not a vaccine, and that it could kill them. Now all that is true, but even if it weren't, people should have the RIGHT to say whatever they want. That is FREE SPEECH and Congress is not allowed to make a law abridging it.

However, it didn't take long after those 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights were ratified for Congress to break its own law. In fact, in 1798, just seven years after the Constitution was ratified, Congress enacted the Sedition Act. This was a law, passed by the US Congress that made it illegal to "print, utter, or publish...any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the government.

How about that? The US Congress literally "made a law" that "abridged the freedom of speech." In fact, many people were imprisoned in America simply for criticizing the government—mostly editors of newspapers who criticized President John Adams and his administration.

Fortunately, men back in those days weren't pansies and American citizens fought back vehemently. In fact, two years later, John Adams and pretty much his entire Federalist Party lost everything and were handsomely defeated by Thomas Jefferson and his supporters.

Jefferson became the 3rd President of the United States, and he pardoned all the imprisoned newspaper editors, and they got rid of the corrupt and evil Sedition Act in 1801.

But there is a real problem to take note of with this story. You see, the Constitution clearly gives us the right to freedom of speech. And the Sedition Act clearly violated that law. So then, if a law contradicts the US Constitution, should our police officers, judges, and prosecutors obey the US Constitution or should they obey the inferior law that violates the US Constitution?

Well everyone knows the answer to that question—the US Constitution is what should obeyed and not the inferior law which, being contrary to the US Constitution, is wholly illegal!

But think about it—think about how many employees of the government had to break the law, violate their oaths, and reject the US Constitution in order to put those newspaper editors in prison. From the police officers, to the court clerks, to prosecutors, district attorneys, and judges—they all had to uniformly line up in opposition to the US Constitution and the American people to collectively tyrannize the people. And they did so repeatedly, without consequence.

You see, nobody shot them. None of them went to jail for rejecting the Constitution. They didn't lose their paychecks. Nothing happened to them. And that is the most important lesson that Government employees have learned, and that has become part of their ethos and their culture—obey whatever supports and protects government and you will likewise always be protected and will never face negative consequences.

So the cycle continued:

  • In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln violated the 1st Amendment when he began shutting down newspapers that opposed the war. Some of the editors of the newspapers were put in prison again, without charge, after Lincoln famously suspended the writ of habeas corpus.
  • In 2007, WikiLeaks released a secret manual written for prison guards at the US detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We were detaining hundreds of "suspected terrorists" without any of them being accused of any crime. And many of them had no evidence against them. None. Zero. But hey, they were brown and looked like terrorists and had Arab names so that's good enough, right? Also, the manual gave the rules for the type of torture that they were allowed to use against the detainees and instructed guards to “exploit the disorientation and disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee.” An excellent movie was made that clearly demonstrates America's guilt in this regard called, The Mauritanian.
  • In 2010, again Wikileaks published top secret materials which included a video taken from a US helicopter in which at least 12 innocent Iraqi civilians were intentionally murdered. The leaked documents also revealed that more than 66,000 innocent Iraqi civilians had been murdered by American forces in Iraq. For publishing these FACTS, Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, has been indicted in America and the US government is trying to imprison him and kill him for it.

But you see, the US government is not just trying to shut us up. It is, at the same time, trying to control your mind by publishing LIES on purpose.

The most obvious example is the now de-classified Operation Mockingbird, which was an initiative by the CIA which paid newspapers and journalists to publish "fake news" in order to manipulate public opinion. In short, the CIA wanted to control the narrative and shape the belief of the average American.

The program has never been disbanded. It is still ongoing today, though no one will officially admit to it. In fact, one of the main reasons you will see former CIA, FBI, and NSA operatives working on the payroll for major news outlets and tech companies (like Google and Facebook), is because of the 2013 Amendment to the Smith-Mundt Act with gave the government express permission to target propaganda and psychological operations at the American public.

And look, they're not hiding it! I've included links in this article on purpose. I want you to check my sources. See for yourself if its true or if I'm just blowing smoke.

So what does all of this bring us to? Well, this brings us to modern day censorship which many conservatives have taken, what I believe, to be the wrong approach.

You see, our government is much wiser in its old age. They have learned to be crafty like serpents. Government censorship today is not explicit. Instead of imprisoning people at newspapers, they just control the newspapers. Instead of censoring people's publications, they just tell the private corporations who host our publications to take down our posts. Instead of imprisoning dissenters, they have private corporations and individuals sue the dissenters for defamation and then imprison them for contempt of court when they continue with their public dissent.

And this is how they get around it—they use private corporations as a shield for their corruption and their violation of free speech.

You see, it is true that Facebook, YouTube, Google, and TikTok, as private companies, have the right to control whatever content is placed on their platforms. And the government should not prohibit them from posting whatever they want to post—even if its offensive.

But the problem is that, behind the scenes, the government is telling these private corporations what to do, OR ELSE. So the government hides behind these private companies, all the while the EFFECT of the censorship is exactly the same—the government itself ends up being responsible for abridging the free speech of the people.

Republicans, right wingers, and conservatives seem to fall into two camps over this:

1. They are claiming that private corporations have the right do control their own products and services and therefore must be left alone. This argument is technically and academically accurate, but it ignores the reality of what is happening right now—that the US government is controlling or influencing what companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and others are allowing on their platforms. Once these companies are told or pressured what to do by the government, they truly can no longer be considered "private" entities as they have become quasi-governmental agencies.

2. They are calling for government rules and laws to regulate the speech that is allowed on these platforms. This is contrary to every philosophical position of a true freedom loving Constitutionalist. This is actually the position of a marxist, but many conservatives blinded by their rage over the fact that they lose their accounts on these platforms, have temporary lapses into marxism and start demanding that the government step in and FORCE the government to work in their favor.

The point is this—modern day censorship on big tech platforms is the equivalent of the nullification of the 1st Amendments right to free speech because the government is still behind the abridging of people's free speech.

And while no NEW LAW is going to fix this, if the people will rise up against their overlords in Congress, kick them to the curb, and force the liars into extreme accountability at a Nuremberg 2.0 (like Stew Peters espouses), then we could get back our 1st Amendment right to free speech!

And in the process, we'd probably recover the other rights guaranteed to us in the 1st amendment, as well!
Gunner Steel Signature
1317 Edgewater Dr #5077
Orlando, FL 32804
Freedom Man Links
Contact Us
Stacks Image 69