Who the Hell Are You, Zuck?
by David Sims
SOME MONTHS ago, I posted on my Facebook page a message containing three sentences, each of which expressed some easily verifiable truth regarding the general run of Black people. I’d touched upon:
1. The most common opinion among Blacks concerning the importance of Black slave labor to the building of the United States of America, in comparison with the importance of free labor to that same purpose.
2. The disparity in average IQ between the White and the Black races.
3. The degree to which Blacks may be inclined to accept, uncritically, any convenient or comforting narrative regarding race achievements or race differences.
Since this isn’t Facebook, I’ll present the text of the censored post: “Blacks actually believe that the prosperity that the United States once had was brought about by slave labor. You may laugh, but that is really what they think. Low IQ people, such as Blacks, readily believe any convenient fable that is suggested to them.”
Facebook censored that post, alleging that it violated their community standards on “hate speech,” which they define as language that attacks people based on their race (among other things).
The US Supreme Court ruling in the case of Matal v. Tam (2017) settled the constitutional doctrine on the legality of “hate speech.” Briefly, the high court held that speech isn’t disqualified from legal protection simply because someone hates it, or because someone (like Facebook’s moderators) thinks that the speech is hateful. That is, there is no legal exception in the First Amendment for “hate speech,” unlike the exception that exists for speech that presents “a clear and present danger.”
Speech that presents “a clear and present danger” includes shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater, or speech that incites an assembly of people and turns them into a violent mob. That latter (inciting a riot) is the sort of speech that certain leftist groups have been lately getting away with, even though it is legally actionable.
But discussing or debating race differences in a manner that the speaker believes is truthful has been ruled protected under the First Amendment by our country’s highest court. Legally, the phrase “hate speech” signifies nothing of importance. It is a paper tiger pushed by leftist ideologues.
The mainstream and big-tech media-promoted fiction that “hate speech” isn’t entitled to First Amendment protection has been used by Facebook to censor my speech. This is an editorial act that establishes, as a legal fact, that Facebook is a publisher, not a platform, and that, therefore, Facebook is not entitled to immunity from lawsuits or from prosecution in connection with what any of its customers might write in their Facebook posts.
As always, any of my posts that is censored on one Web site will reappear on several dozen other Web sites, so that the net effect of the censorship will be the opposite of what the censors intended.
One more thing.
Just who the Hell are you, Facebook, to declare what must be regarded as “hateful” by all mankind? Who made you the big global decider of such matters? When did you become God? A corporation such as yourself is either a publisher, able to censor, but liable for his content, or a platform, without the right to censor, but immune from lawsuits or prosecution.
You, Facebook, have been trying to have the best of both and the reciprocal responsibilities of neither. It’s long past time someone put a stop to your power-grabbing.
* * *