Friday, September 25, 2020

Petitions to Protect Free Speech Online

      In addition to the Petition pending before the Federal Trade Commission (see my comments to that agency here:  http://www.inhere.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Comments-FCC-Petition-11862.pdf) The Vitamin Consultancy is pleased to present this guest blog entry regarding the also-pending White House Petition.  rf...

Sign White House Petition here:    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-social-media-censorship-and-protect-free-fair-elections

-----------------------

How to win back our Freedom in today’s Digital Battlefield

By John Hammell, President, International Advocates for Health Freedom

www.iahf.com 1-800-333-2553  jham@iahf.com Follow on Twitter: @IAHFUSA

H

ave you ever wondered why Twitter removes and/or restricts legal political content from Conservatives like President Trump or General Michael T. Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell with brazen impunity? Or why Google’s YouTube[1] and Square Space can swiftly de-platform any site like the American Frontline Doctors’ Summit[2] Press Conference that challenged the COVID-19 agenda despite having received over 2 million views? Or why Twitter[3], Facebook, Google[4], Apple and other internet computer service providers routinely win lawsuits[5] for 1st Amendment violations for censoring conservatives like Laura Loomer & Freedom Watch[6]?

All of these are examples of censorship. Censorship is a threat to free speech, and by extension, an existential threat to free and fair elections! The free-flow exchange of ideas is the bedrock of any thriving and free society. Hence the reason why our Founding Fathers acknowledged and enshrined that freedom of speech as our God-given unalienable right in the First Amendment.

Today our public town square is now Digital. But as General Michael T. Flynn astutely described in his Open Letter to America, we are in an information warfare and a battle for the soul of America where the “2% vocal minority control the 98% silent majority[7].” With less than 40 days before this historic Presidential Election, is there even enough time to win back our freedom? Are we now the SILENCED majority?

A brief history 

Back in 1996, Congress passed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) to protect this nascent internet computer service industry.

Inside Section 230(c)(2), the Good Samaritan Clause granted immunity from liability unique only to interactive computer service providers who act in “good faith” when they censor content that THEY deem as “otherwise objectionable.” This liability is broad and unconditional and more recently has been used to censor lawful conservative political content and for distributing unlawful third-party content. An extensive review of legal cases reveals that these two words “otherwise objectionable” have been at the heart of BigTech’s enduring immunity protection at both State and Federal courts. (see the footnotes after the first paragraph of page 1) Also see footnoted article.[8]

That’s right, Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), Jack Dorsey (Twitter) and their PLATFORM ALLIES are legally SHREDDING the First Amendment rights guaranteed in our U.S. Constitution, and GETTING AWAY WITH IT due to just those two words! They can legally consider anything they want to be “otherwise objectionable”. And the argument of “publisher vs. platform” does not appear to negatively impact Big Tech’s immunity so that the Courts continue to garner wins for these companies.

In short, no other industry enjoys this immunity from limited liability. Not even its distinct cousin the newspaper or printed media. Who could have foreseen how businesses and government would embrace this technology and intertwine it in our daily way of life and how we communicate with each other or express ourselves?

The internet today is considered by many experts as a “new” public utility like the telephone or power grid was in the 20th century. In fact, these platforms function as the new DIGITAL Public Square when people dynamically exchange flow of ideas. That idea was foremost in the minds of the lawmakers when they crafted that statute. In theory, yes. In practice, the tolerance only goes as far as you share the vocal 2% minority liberal ideas or concepts.

And if you happen to disagree, be surprised by the Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms that digitally “rip out your tongue” and deny your right to free speech. On Twitter, it is called “Twitmo” and thousands of us are parolees. Repeat offenders get harsher sentences like restrictions, removal of followers, Ghost or Shadow Banned or Reply De-boosted, and the anti-person tactic of all, outright Suspension or being permanently banned! YouTube and Instagram also deploy their AI algorithms and hide content unless users use a string of certain key words in order to find content or else, they will disappear that content.

When these platforms act in concert, then you have tyranny of the minority and we become the SILENCED majority.

What Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away

We have no chance in court unless we get CONGRESS to pass legislation that REFORMS section 230 of the CDA[9]  by removing those two words “Otherwise Objectionable[10]”. Of the three co-equal branches of government, only Congress has the authority to reform that complex statute.

There are several Senate bills attempting to amend Section 230:

·        Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced S. 3983 “Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritan Act” ;

·        Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) introduced S.4062 “Stopping Big Tech’s Censorship Act; and more recently,

·        Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) and Chairman of the Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee introduced S. 4534 “Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act”.

After careful review, we noticed all three Senate bills contained language that appear to have heavy influence from Big Tech lobbyists.

As we speak, Sen. Hawley’s attempt to get his S. 3983 bill to reform 230 by unanimous consent was just blocked by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR). Sen. Wyden was one of the sponsors of Section 230 and believes Section 230 immunity protects the (supposedly)  little guys like Antifa and BLM[11].  (I say “supposedly” because that’s the perception WE’RE supposed to have, but the REALITY is that they’re ASTROTURF (FAKE grass roots) with GIGANTIC corporate funding, that we’re not supposed to see![12]

H.R. 7808 Stop the Censorship Act of 2020

Last July 28, 2020, Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ) introduced HR 7808 (Stop the Censorship Act of 2020) that amends Section 230 and incorporates many of the DOJ (Department of Justice) recommendations for Section 230 Reform[13] last June 17, 2020[14].

But time is of the essence.

Why?

Since 2018, BigTech has been aware of the bi-partisan Congressional attempt to reform Section 230[15]. Proactively, they succeeded in codifying Section 230 language in the USMCA (US Mexico Canada) Trade Agreement, thereby creating a de facto global standard and ultimately protecting their immunity in the USA. And the initial draft of the US-Japan Trade Deal also contains Section 230 language and expands that immunity.

Section 230 is not a trade issue and does not belong in ANY trade agreements. Baking Section 230 language in treaties or trade agreements obstructs Congress from reforming Section 230 without jeopardizing trade agreements[16].

Fightback for FREEDOM

Upon final analysis, H.R. 7808 is the strongest bill to stop online censorship & protect our free and fair elections! But we all need to work together and help push this bill by combining the passage of this bill with this election cycle.

pass this bill has the most co-sponsors at (16).

Here is WHAT TO DO:

(1) Sign this Petition on the White House Petition Site, and urge EVERYONE YOU KNOW, everyone within your sphere of influence who SHARES your OUTRAGE at “Big Tech’s” effort to RIG our Election by using Algorithms to CENSOR, SHADOW BAN, BLOCK, and DESTROY our ability to communicate in this modern Town Square. 

We need to reach 100,000 signatures by October 18, 2020 in order for the White House to act on it within 60 days.

Stop Social Media Censorship and Protect FREE & FAIR elections!

Created September 18, 2020

Sign This Petition https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-social-media-censorship-and-protect-free-fair-elections

We The People urge President Trump to support the passage of H.R. 7808 “Stop the Censorship Act of 2020[17]” by encouraging a companion Senate bill that mirrors it, and signing to law once it passes because Censorship threatens FREE & FAIR Elections.

H.R. 7808 amends Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Section 230) by granting immunity to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other Social Media platforms for the removal of UNLAWFUL MATERIAL instead of “otherwise objectionable,” and provides users with options to filter.

Section 230 is also NOT a trade issue and does not belong in any trade agreements. Baking Section 230 language in trade deals will hinder Congress’ ability to reform the law without jeopardizing the agreements.

2. It is very important that a Senator sponsors a companion Senate bill to H.R. 7808 that mirrors that language. Otherwise the bill will not change the CDA (Communications Decency Act) sufficiently for our side to be able to prevail in court! (any language that WATERS DOWN the removal of the words “otherwise objectionable” defeats our efforts which is why we can’t trust the existing Senate bills on this issue, we MUST get a Senate Companion bill that directly mirrors HR 7808.

Use the passage of H.R. 7808 as a way to get more co-sponsors for H.R. 7808 by alerting all candidates and embattled incumbents in tight 2020 races[18] to embrace this as a campaign issue by co-sponsoring it. 

Help us reach out to first time candidates in Battleground House and Senate races[19] to consider acknowledging the NEED for this bill during their campaigns and if they get elected, they will PLEDGE TO COSPONSOR the bill when it is reintroduced in the next Congress, possibly with a new bill number!

You can reach your Congressmen and Senators through the Capital Switchboard at 1-877 SOB- USOB (1-877-762-8762), but to talk to a live person call their District Office via a Member search on www.congress.gov. (If you get their machine, give your name, address, phone number, and tell them you expect a call back and you want the name of the staffer handling free speech issues! Also, it really helps to write an actual letter to them!

3. Listen either Live, or as archived podcast that I’ll be doing from 6pm-7pm Pacific on "Immunize Wizely" on Republic Broadcasting Network on Saturday, September 26, 2020. This show is hosted by Ingri Cassel of www.vaclib.org and has commercial breaks, so if you hear an ad when you tune in, please be patient! (If you can’t listen live, you can always listen to the archived audio file at any time! Please forward the link when you do and everyone within your sphere of influence to help! We need 100,000 Signatures on our petition by October 18th in order to get a formal response from Trump.

 4. Email me at jham@iahf.com if you can either put me on your radio show or podcast, or if you have a connection who can put me on their radio show or archive. Encourage more people to read this article in my archived newsletters at https://ymlp.com/archive_gjbeuhgjgu.php  (To subscribe to the IAHF list, please go to www.iahf.com and use the sign up menu.) This article isn’t yet on that site but it will be the most recent one (at the top of the list) after I post it, and you will then be able to get a more precise url to give to people! If you know of any way to reach out to Dustin Nemos, or to Gary Prager of Prager U, I really need to reach them both before they get burned attempting lawsuits on this that they can’t win unless we first change the law! )

5. Get copies of this article out to everyone within your sphere of influence, email it to them and encourage them to sign our White House online petition and by taking action! Need to talk directly with me with a lead to help me get on a podcast or radio show? Call me at 1-800-333-2553 and leave a message for me to call back, I can’t always answer the phone.

6. Share this Article to any Republican in a tight race, especially in the Battle Ground States and local races, and urge them to pledge support for HR 7808 in the next Congress when it is reintroduced, possibly under a new bill number. Get this article to anyone running for Federal Office so they can become familiar with this issue and use it in their campaign! Urge them to pledge support for HR 7808 in the next Congress, (and if they get elected to the Senate, to sponsor a mirroring Companion bill to HR 7808. 

7. Support my Health Freedom work by buying sulfur and other detox products at www.sulfurforhealth.com  .I am disabled due to a serious injury, and drinking sulfur water three times a day really helps alleviate pain because all pain is some cell’s cry for oxygen! It also gives me energy needed to compensate for lost sleep caused by extreme pain and is much safer than caffeine which hammers our adrenal glands. If you appreciate my efforts to defend America, and want to just make a donation but not buy sulfur, please use this link www.paypal.me/IAHFSULFUR

Remember…the most powerful weapon in the world is a Patriotic American! In this battle for the very soul of our Republic, will you stand up to be heard? Please forward this urgent message to everyone within your sphere of influence. America is literally dangling by a thread right now, but all is not lost if we use this freedom of speech issue to full advantage! Please ACT as if everything depended on YOU while praying as if everything depended on GOD! 

[8]  List of lawsuits we’ve lost in this article https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/5/27/21272066/social-media-bias-laura-loomer-larry-klayman-twitter-google-facebook-loss

[18] Contact me at jham@iahf.com for Current list of key Congressional Races we need to help or ask Steve Sargent at Digital Warriors at https://www.digitalwarriorsusa.com/ if you can’t reach me when you try, and if you can’t reach him, try me again, we’re all snowed but doing our best. Please also check my most recent newsletter at www.iahf.com archived newsletters, the one on top is most recent: https://ymlp.com/archive_gjbeuhgjgu.php

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Saturday, September 12, 2020

Institute Live Stream Archive

 Dr. Rima, Dr. Reg and Counsel Ralph Spoke
At The Woodlands Lunch Forum
Re-Inaugurating the Forum Series After the Lockdown

Here is the Archive Link:

https://facebook.com/WoodlandsOnline/videos/3230794120372858/

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Sunday, September 6, 2020

Nationalist Libertarianism

 


Nationalist Libertarianism
Libertarian Nationalism

The Prolegomena to a Libertarian International Policy
Divesting Globalist Governance of Authority
To Micro-Manage Our Lives
Is the Only Path to World Peace
-----------------
This Essay
In Memory of a Peace Warrior
Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine
06 Feb 1930 - 06 Feb 2017 

We live in a World System where the promise of peace and prosperity has become a distortion used to empower globalist elites with their demonstrated eugenocide agenda; most recently, through the Declared COVID 'Pandemic', where relations among nation-states resemble the brutal behavior of thugs – where cultural Nations are plundered at will -- a true Hobbesian international order.

As the lack of intellectual viability of Statism in its various racial, religious, national, international, bureaucratic, imperialist and other forms becomes increasingly exposed, the need to articulate an alternative libertarian nationalist approach to relations among people of different cultures, and thus Nations, becomes critical. As the nation-state and its institutions (including international agencies, such as the UN) become increasingly irrelevant in an economically globalized, blockchain-enabled, post-singularity world, a market-oriented, cosmopolitan nationalism is urgently needed.

L. von Mises pointed the way toward such an approach with his understanding of classical liberalism’s cosmopolitanism – “nationalism does not clash with cosmopolitanism, for the unified nation does not want discord with neighboring peoples, but peace and friendship.”[1]

The juridical subjects of International Law, "International Actors," include nation-states (even micro-states like the Vatican), a certain few private associations (like the Red Cross or Sovereign Knights of Malta), and international agencies like the UN and its associated institutions (such as certain privileged NGOs and "specialized agencies"  -- WHO and FAO, for example). What are not included in this list are actual private persons, such as you and me, natural or cultural Nations, and even juridical persons such as private associations and registered corporations.

The humans and human organizations with which we usually interact are missing from the globalist structure of international relations.

We individuals do not exist in the currently dominant statist view of international law.

In the eyes of Globalist International Actors, we real people and our associations are little more than disregarded entities. This state of affairs is entirely unsatisfactory to libertarians. Libertarians understand, taught by Mises' brilliant philosophical exposition in his master work Human Action, that there is only one set of actual actors in human affairs: individual humans.

To paraphrase Mises: only individuals think, plan and engage in Human Action. 

The belief that collective nouns such as "state" or "corporation" or "class" and the like engage in human action is a superstitious delusion that has led to much human suffering.

Any truly humane, libertarian international law must, going forward, take this grave error into account.

Consider the long march of human history and how treating individual humans as objects led us to endless millennia of statist imperial warfare, culminating the 20th Century's killing fields and nuclear incinerations. Consider the necessary role of Statism in the imposition of what Lysander Spooner saw as the Great Monopolies: the horror of slavery, vicious state churches, the legal "incapacities of women" and the King's trade monopolies.

Consider therefore the false "glories" of the State as a human institution. Consider it and condemn this most vile of accretions of a brutal past.

 

“A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it also lies; and this lie creeps from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." It is a lie! ... Destroyers, are they who lay snares for many, and call it the state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them. Where there is still a people, there the state is not understood, but hated as the evil eye, and as sin against laws and customs.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

“Where there is still a people...” – that is, a natural, cultural Nation – “there the state is... hated as the evil eye, and as a sin against laws and customs.”

Even as the vicious old concepts: chattel slavery, religious and racial bigotry, institutionalized inequality of women and various others, have become anathema to civilized people, so called,  the very concept a "sovereign" State, not subject to the same rule of law that applies to private persons, must be rejected.

Then we will see the great sweep of human history as the (not always steady) advance in knowledge and enterprise. We will see the inventors, creators, entrepreneurs, as the proper subjects of human admiration, leaving behind childish fascination with bright war medals, glittering crowns and presidential pomp.

Jefferson understood the essence of libertarian foreign policy: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none”. 

The natural implementation of that view is the non-interventionist foreign policy of the Founders of the American Federal Republic, guaranteed by the powerful role of the original US Senate in international treaty relations and federal appointments, as ‘ambassadors of the sovereign states.’  

That glorious era of non-interventionism lasted for over a hundred years (with notable lapses regarding the indigenous nations, Mexico, Mormons, and two failed invasions of Canada). TR's reckless charge up San Juan Hill ended the policy of libertarian non-interventionism. The debacles of the Philippine conquest, and of World War One led to militant world socialism, embodied in states such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Red China. This resulted in unparalleled death and destruction. The USA became the not-so-reluctant World Policeman.

However, Libertarians always stand against war. Whether Thoreau asking Emerson why his friend was not in the jail cell with him for refusing to pay the Mexico War Tax, or Murray Rothbard telling my Viet Nam bound contemporaries exactly how "the coldest of all cold monsters" used selective service conscription to centrally plan the welfare/warfare state.

Whether Warren, Tucker and Spooner all decrying the uncivil war between the States to make America safe for the Federal bureaucracy or Mencken poking at the hubris of the world war warriors, libertarian-Americans stood against every war after the Rebellion of 1776; stood with every resistance to Federal Power from the Whiskey Tax Rebellion of 1791.

[1] So the very first principle of a libertarian nationalist approach to foreign affairs is Peace -- Anti-War.

Standing for peace, we stand with the victims of war, including those murdered "in our names" and those forced to pay for the carnage, "Trillions and trillions wasted..." Hon. Ron Paul


Libertarians understand that the main result of an interventionist foreign policy is death; millions of deaths... and the resulting "blow back" that brings the war back home. Do Americans really think we can escape the results of violating other people? For most of the years since the adoption of the Constitution of 1787 the Federal Republic has been at war. It is our moral responsibility as citizens to join in the call, “War no more; war never again.”

"War no more; war never again." Pope Paul VI. 

Does that mean I oppose people overthrowing tyrannies by force? No. I applaud self-determination. Americans, however, have a special obligation to keep our "coldest of cold monsters" within its assigned borders. That means bringing all the troops home. The Founders understood that a standing army spread across the globe would be an invitation to disaster. We need to respect the borders of other nations if we expect our borders to be respected. A Nation without borders is an Empire about to expire. 

The abandoning of the Founder’s wise non-interventionism proved this. We need to stop it. A Nation defends its borders.  An Empire ignores them. The best we could do for peace and freedom is to bring all the troops home.

[2] The second principle must be Individualism. 

There is no "collective action" and no collective guilt. No tax-funded “reparations.” There is only individual Human Action. This must be the bedrock ground of any sane approach to international relations (or any human relations). The universal rights of real, individual humans must be respected in international law and individuals must have standing to act internationally.

Chief among these rights is the Right of Informed Consent in all things pertaining to our bodies,  minds and spirit. As Natural Solutions Foundation founder, the late Maj. Gen. Bert Stubblebine taught us, the individual's right to "Informed consent is the defining issue of the 21st Century."[2]

[3] And the third principle, Free Trade. 

Despite the mercantilist errors being spouted by some Republicans and Democrats, protectionism (with its regulations and tariffs) is simply taxation -- and we are Taxed Enough Already. 

Whether penalizing companies for following market forces or imposing new tariffs, it is just tax policy and the incidence of the tax will fall where all taxes fall: on the production of real goods and services, paid for by the consumers. Who benefits? The Bureaucracy.

In economic science the issue was settled literally centuries ago.

First, the market price is the just price. Therefore, any government imposition that restricts the market price must be unjust.

Second, as early as the Corn Law Debates in England in the 1830s it has been conceded by all thinking economists that free trade benefits those countries that adopt it, even if other countries continue irrationally to impose protectionist policies. If you read the economic literature and do the math, you will realize that protectionism is a con.

The Nation is better off with free trade and market-created currency than it can ever be with centrally planned trade and government fiat currency.  The blockchain can enable both secure, "trustless" trade and non-state currency, facilitating a new era of world economic growth.  Not globalist control, but free individuals living in free Nations freely trading without government permission or fiat.

Peace -- Individualism -- Free Trade: lead to a libertarian world. 

As a practical matter, urgent steps in that direction require a wholesale planetary divesting of authority from political systems used to micro-manage Human Action. 

Every regulation abolished, every tax reduced, is a victory for humanity. The direct political program therefore must be "abolish multiple old regulations for any new one proposed" -- and the same as to taxes and bureaus.

Just as the market price is the only just price we can know[3] humans, free to act with their own property (including their bodies) as they choose, will make, on the whole, on average, the best choices. Far better than those decisions being dictated to us by a self-appointed globalist elite that will do anything to maintain power and privilege, shrinking not even from genocidal, weaponized vaccines and declared pseudo- pandemics.

The existence of international libertarian organizations, such as Libertarian Parties, Mises Circles and the like is very encouraging.

Here is what the libertarian protesters in Brazil were saying:


L. von Mises understood it clearly. He warned us, from his vantage point of the 20th Century, the Century of Genocide, the consequences of statist interventionism:

"Man's freedom to choose and to act is restricted in a threefold way. There are first the physical laws to whose unfeeling absoluteness man must adjust his conduct if he wants to live. There are second the individual's innate constitutional characteristics and dispositions and the operation of environmental factors; we know that they influence both the choice of the ends and that of the means, although our cognizance of the mode of their operation is rather vague. There is finally the regularity of phenomena with regard to the interconnectedness of means and ends, viz., the praxeological law as distinct from the physical and from the physiological law. The elucidation and the categorial and formal examination of this third class of laws of the universe is the subject matter of praxeology and its hitherto best-developed branch, economics. The body of economic knowledge is an essential element in the structure of human civilization; it is the foundation upon which modern industrialism and all the moral, intellectual, technological, and therapeutical achievements of the last centuries have been built. It rests with men whether they will make the proper use of the rich treasure with which this knowledge provides them or whether they will leave it unused. But if they fail to take the best advantage of it and disregard its teachings and warnings, they will not annul economics; they will stamp out society and the human race." -- L. von Mises, Human Action (Part Seven, Chapter XXXI,3)


Libertarians need to apply Mises' profound understanding to our advocacy for a peaceful world. 

Only then can we achieve human freedom, peace and prosperity. If we intend to prevent the 21st Century from becoming the Century of Eugenicide, the culling of humanity, for the supposed benefit of the globalist elite, we must demand a humane future in which individuals are free to trade and live in peaceful harmony with all other individual humans.


At this time our liberties are under relentless attack, all in the name of "public health."  The public cries out for safety and the public health authorities, while not able to provide it, are quite willing to abolish liberties wholesale as their new fiat coin of control.

If we do not advocate for a free and peaceful world, who will?

This essay is an updated version of a previous posting at this blog.

[1] Quote from L. von Mises, Nation, State, and Economy posted by J. Deist, https://mises.org/wire/national-conservatism-and-cosmopolitanism

[2] More on informed consent:  https://tinyurl.com/AVDcard

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Sunday, August 9, 2020

Mandatory Masking and the ADA

The ADA Protects You from
Mandatory Masking if
Masks Interfere with Your Breathing

CAN’T MASK — DON’T ASK!

When Congress adopted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990 it explained the purposes: [1]

It is the purpose of this chapter

(1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
(2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
(3) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the standards established in this chapter on behalf of individuals with disabilities; and
(4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.

The law defines “disability” as:

“a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual…” and further, “For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.” Congress also required, “The definition of disability in this chapter shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals…” (Sec. 12102. Definition of Disability) [Emphasis added.]

The Department of Labow notes,

“The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in several areas, including employment, transportation, public accommodations, communications and access to state and local government’ programs and services.” [2]

A fair reading of the statute suggests that the mis-use of sanitary masking as a sign of compliance with Declared Pandemic rules which interferes with “breathing” to the extent of impacting major life activities is prohibited by the Law.

While sanitary masks have a proper use, during surgery, for example, the labeling of such masks make it clear that they are not designed to prevent disease, just to limit the spreading of droplets from the mouth and nose. Whether masks “work” or not, however, is not the issue.

It is my opinion that the Law protects individuals who cannot mask due to breathing difficulties when they attempt to mask. The phrase, “Can’t mask — Don’t ask.” is appropriate for such persons. There is no requirement in the wording of the Law that requires a person to be diagnosed with a specific disability. The law does not permit others to demand to know what disability is involved.

If wearing a mask interferes with breathing, being required to wear a mask violates the Law.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), first disabled woman in the US Senate recently told The Hill,

“Disability rights are human rights, and these civil rights must never become optional benefits that can be taken away whenever it’s convenient or cheaper for employers and those who are in power…” [3]

While no are no formal requirements to assert your rights under the ADA, you may want to obtain the Advance Sanitary Masking Directive, an Advance Medical Directive Card that asserts your right to refrain from masking as an Informed Consent medical decision.

More here: https://tinyurl.com/maskexemption

—————-

[1] https://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm
[2] https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/disability/ada
[3] https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/510789-duckworth-republican-coronavirus-package-would-gut-americans-with

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Friday, August 7, 2020

Federal Communications Commission Comments

Comments by Ralph Fucetola JD
Institute President Submits Public Comments

FCC SHOULD PROTECT THE INTERNET PUBLIC COMMONS
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1080792043737/Ralph%20Fucetola.pdf

ABSTRACT: Comments submitted on 7 August 2020 by Ralph Fucetola JD with reference to the Department of Commerce’s Federal Communications Commission Petition #11862 of 27 July 2020 seeking clarification of provisions of 47 U.S.C § 230.

— Acknowledging the recent actions of Twitter and Facebook to ban speech by President Trump allegedly determined to be “false” by “third party fact checkers” I am submitting these comments as a retired attorney at law with 36 years of practice.

— I am concerned with the actions of various social media companies in “banning” [a term that reminds me of the evils of Apartheid] various persons, including President Trump, for political speech.

— The apparent coordinated “bannings” of various speakers, including, for example Alex Jones (who was banned by several social media companies during one 24 hour period in late September, 2018) suggests unlawful conspiracy by the companies in their use of the Internet Public Utility or Public Commons.

Read more here:

http://www.inhere.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Comments-FCC-Petition-11862.pdf


19 September 2020 Update

[1] The Key Words

Section 230 of the Act uses the words "or otherwise objectionable" in its provision protecting service providers if they remove "pornography" from their services.  The term "or otherwise objectionable" could not have been intended by Congress to embrace political or other opinion speech and scientific discourse, since such speech is not legally the equivalent of pornographic communications. The one is protected by the First Amendment's absolute protection for Freedom of Speech while the other is not fully recognized as protected speech.

Courts have distinguished between pornography and all other speech.  While it is therefore possible for courts to interpret Section 230 as not allowing the service providers to censor political and similar opinion speech, it would be best if Congress and the President worked together to amend the law to better protect speech.

[2] White House Petition

This White House Petition allows you to express your support for a stronger Section 230. Here is the link:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-social-media-censorship-and-protect-free-fair-elections

"We The People urge President Trump to support the passage of H.R. 7808 “Stop the Censorship Act of 2020” by encouraging a companion Senate bill that mirrors it, and signing to law once it passes because Censorship threatens FREE & FAIR Elections.

H.R. 7808 amends Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (Section 230) by granting immunity to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other Social Media platforms for the removal of UNLAWFUL MATERIAL instead of “otherwise objectionable,” and provides users with options to filter."

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Comments to FCC Regarding Trump Censorship Petition

 

FCC SHOULD PROTECT THE
INTERNET PUBLIC COMMONS
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1080792043737/Ralph%20Fucetola.pdf

Comments submitted on 7 August 2020 by Ralph Fucetola JD with reference to the Department of Commerce's Federal Communications Commission Petition  #11862 of 27 July 2020 seeking clarification of provisions of 47 U.S.C § 230.

Acknowledging the recent actions of Twitter and Facebook to ban speech by President Trump allegedly determined to be "false" by "third party fact checkers" I am submitting these comments as a retired attorney at law with 36 years of practice.

I am concerned with the actions of various social media companies in "banning" [a term that reminds me of the evils of Apartheid] various persons, including President Trump, for political speech.

The apparent coordinated "bannings" of various speakers, including, for example Alex Jones (who was banned by several social media companies during one 24 hour period in late September, 2018) suggests unlawful conspiracy by the companies in their use of the Internet Public Utility or Public Commons.

I assert that the evidence does support the theory that these major corporate actors are acting in concert and that their actions violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) [1] and the 14th Amendment [2].

I think anyone so “banned” by the Deep State Social Media Crony Corporations has good grounds under the First Amendment to petition agencies of the Government (including the Federal Communications Commission) for Redress.

We are told that the “bannings” were not unlawful censorship since the banning entities are all "private companies", not subject to the First Amendment’s injunction, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” I disagree and urge the Commission to consider several points of law.

The First Point of Law to note is that the Supreme Court has applied the language of the First Amendment to not just Acts of Congress, but to any actions of the Federal Government, and, through the 14th Amendment, to the States as well.[3]

The Second Point of Law to note is that access is protected under the First Amendment. In the 2017 case of Packingham v North Carolina the Supreme Court held that “a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak…”[4]

The Third Point of Law to note is that the 14th Amendment provides that States may not make or enforce any law that abridges the rights of US citizens.  This includes, of course, a State granting the corporate franchise to private companies such that they may act in violation of our Fundamental Rights.

The Internet was initially established by the US Government and remains our information commons, a “public utility,” although used by private persons to communicate and by publicly registered and traded companies to profit from our communications.

The social media corporations are in law “creatures of the state” existing by virtue of the grant of the corporate franchise which permits such entities privileges that are not applicable to purely private persons, including the limited liability privilege and the privilege of selling shares to the public as joint stock companies, to profit from the use of the Internet Public Utility. Under Federal Law they have the further privilege of the Section 230 exemption from liability for the content of Speech expressed on their platforms.

While these companies appear, to some degree, as “private” businesses, they act over the Internet Public Utility. They act n the commons “under color of law” and are therefore more akin to government agencies than to private actors.

That these entities engage in substantial commerce with the government, receiving tax funds for certain contracts including the providing of data about users to government agencies such as the National Security Agency and Department of Homeland Security [5], and benefiting from the use of the Internet Public Utility further substantiates their status as agents of government power acting under "color of law".

As such, these quasi-public actors must be bound by the restrictions of the First Amendment and cannot discriminate among their users on the basis of the content of the Speech which the users express over the Internet Public Utility.

When several of these quasi-private companies act in apparent concert to ban the Speech of a particular user over the Internet Public Utility they do so “under color of law” and in violation of the Freedom of Speech of both the speaker and those who seek to receive the communication.

Both Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association are restricted through the exercise of authority depending on government. This is unlawful.

The effect of the unlawful actions of the companies is to tortuously interfere with valuable commercial relationships, between the speaker and hearer, causing substantial financial harm and damages. BTW, I note, currently, Facebook still accepts ads from certain “banned” companies. But not from others.

Such unlawful acts, and the unlawful combination to engage in such acts, may violate the provisions of RICO.  The companies that are the most egregious banners include PayPal, Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. 

Some of these same companies are “making pacts with the devil” by developing special government-censored versions of their services for Communist-controlled China, enabling that tyrannical regime to impose its social control system on the world’s most populous country.

In the United States, the targeting of individuals because of the content of the Speech they seek to express over the Internet Public Utility can be seen as a type of commercial extortion forbidden under RICO.  Conspiracies to do so may provide the second “act of racketeering activity” to invoke RICO. The claim to rely on "third party fact checkers" is an act in furtherance of the unlawful purpose.

The Federal Communications Commission has authority to protect the Internet Public Utility from abuse by its users.  In the case of the government-chartered quasi-private service providers such abuse includes seeking to control the Speech of persons using the services.

Section 230 contemplated neutral service providers that would not interfere with the Speech of the users; in return the providers would not be responsible for the content of the Speech expressed by the users.  This requirement of fairness by the providers needs to be clarified so that violations of RICO and of Free Speech and Association will no longer occur. The Commission is obligated, as part of the Executive Branch, to see to it that the laws be faithfully executed.

While various authoritarian states make no effort to hide direct censorship of speech, the “advanced democracies” are more subtle. Germany, with no absolute constitutional protection for Free Speech, is contemplating empowering Internet Service Providers to refuse service to “hate groups.”

At the same time the large international corporate controllers of the Internet, such as YouTube, Facebook and Google, are already escalating content controls to enforce “political correctness” – if you do not follow the Party Line, you cannot be heard.

     First they came after the Neo-Nazis and banned them from Youtube and Facebook. No one protested.

      Then they came after Alex Jones and banned him from Twitter, YouTube and Facebook. No one protested.

      Then they came after the President of the United States...

      You know the rest… and then they came for you and me, and no one was left to protest.

These supposed private Social Media Companies are actually exercising government authority -- just as much as if they had been the “private” Tax Farmers of Ancient Rome. In this case they are exercising government authority to censor Speech -- an authority that no part government under our Constitution may legitimately and constitutionally exercise.

They are the privatized agents of Deep State control and censorship. They exercise this control on several levels. Each of these mega-corporations is, in fact and in law, “a creature of the state.” It is created by registration with government that gives it authorities (such as limited liability to third parties, provided also under Section 230) which it could not exercise as a truly private association.

If the same Rule of Law that applies to truly private actors applied to government and its crony corporations, “content control” efforts would be understood to be exactly what they are: unlawful censorship.

Real free market competition and technological progress would rapidly make the near-monopoly power of Twitter, YouTube, Google and Facebook irrelevant.

If the same Rule of Law that ought to apply to Government Censorship – that there can be no such censorship – applied to Government's crony corporations, YouTube, Facebook etc., “private” censorship could not remain.

The FCC is uniquely positioned to respond to the Petition for Redress by asserting that corporations profiting from our Internet Public Utility must respect Freedom of Speech, and especially when that speech is political in nature, under Section 230.

The August 6th banning of paid advertising from a particular Political Action Group by Facebook [6] for ninety days, with that period of time extending through the National Election Day, shows the serious threat to free, fair and open elections that the government-granted market power of the internet service providers poses.  No one will believe the presidential election is fair if the current situation continues.

The FCC must act quickly to protect Speech and fair elections by immediately enjoining all efforts by the Social Media Companies to interfere in the election through censoring Speech.

Ralph Fucetola JD
President
Institute for Health Research
www.InHeRe.org

 

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

[2] “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” – 14th Amendment

[3] “Beginning with Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court applied the First Amendment to states—a process known as incorporation—through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[4] Ibid. “In Packingham v.North Carolina (2017), the Supreme Court held that a North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing various websites impermissibly restricted lawful speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Court held that ‘a fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more.’”

[5] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/government-expanding-its-social-media-surveillance-capabilities

[6] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/facebook-levels-90-day-ad-ban-on-pro-trump-super-pac

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)