Mask Off: Hillary Clinton’s Calls For Censorship Just Hit a New Level

P. Gardner Goldsmith | October 7, 2024
DONATE
Text Audio
00:00 00:00
Font Size

Some track teams train with what are called Indian Sprints, wherein team members run in line at a set pace, and the person at the end of the line sprints to the front. Once that person reaches the front, the new “caboose” sprints ahead, and so on.

Given the number of leftist politicians who have joined the pernicious Western parade to call for censorship, and given their blindness to, or lack of care for, their own hypocrisy to use avenues of free speech to call for censorship, it seems as if Hillary must have been feeling she was at the tail of the race team, so, she just shot ahead.

Indeed. Her most recent appearance Saturday, October 5, with sycophantic CNN hostoid Michael Smirconish showed her taking off the insufferable mask of gentility, and overtly stating that without censorship, “we lose control.”

The very statement of “control” ought to be sufficient to open a few eyes to the reality of her arrogance and ego, to the fact that she believes the default for her and for you (the serf) is that she and her pals are “in control.”

It is a sociopathic trait she’s evinced for decades, at least as far back as her 1998 statement that the true reports of her husband’s lies about an extramarital affair in the Oval Office were part of a “vast, right-wing conspiracy,” and her dig on average Americans, country music, and morals when she also said she “wasn’t just ‘standin’ by my man,’” as described in the classic Tammy Wynette country song, "Stand by Your Man." That trend continued with her flip 2011 CBS-recorded remark about the unconstitutional, extra-judicial, murder of Libyan President Muammar Qaddafi, when she joked to a nonplused Leslie Stahl, “We came, we saw, he died,” and that Hillary pattern continued with her claims of “Russian interference” as her campaign was tied to the bogus anti-Trump agenda of conjuring up a “Steel Dossier” that opened the unconstitutional doors to the feds spying on the Trump Campaign, and continued even further, thanks to her cozy relationship with the DNC in 2016, seeing her campaign get CNN debate questions BEFORE her debate against Bernie Sanders, and, yep, it continued with her “basket of deplorables” swipe at Americans who might, juuuuust might, be fearful of her odious and incessant wind-baggery taking another political office.

And as folks like Tim Walz and John Kerry and Kamala Harris teed-up their own anti-speech, pro-censorship drivel, Hillary made sure to join fawning Rachel Maddow, who seemed to adore the idea Clinton suggested: the act of government arresting people for speech she labels “disinformation”.

Her new race to the front of the censorship parade saw Clinton tell Smirconish:

“We need national action and sadly, our Congress has been dysfunctional when it comes to addressing these threats to our children. So, you’re absolutely right. This should be at the top of every legislative, political agenda. There should be a lot of things done. We should be, in my view, repealing something called section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs, that they shouldn’t be judged for the content that is posted. But we now know that that was an overly simple view, that if the platforms, whether it’s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control and it’s not just the social and psychological effects, it’s real harm, it’s child porn and threats of violence, things that are terribly dangerous.”

This, coming from the woman who participated in and applauded state-conducted international assassination and saw underlings destroy her own HARDDRIVES when they were supposed to be presented to investigators looking into whether she hosted or transferred classified information on them while she was Secretary of State under Obama.

It's a good thing she has such a consistently strong hold on honesty.

And let’s not forget the fact that she mentioned TikTok, and the Biden Administration pushed to “ban” or force the sale of TikTok, but only AFTER the Harris campaign continues using it until the presidential election.

Lovely people.

Digging deeper into her fatuous statement to Smirconish, Clinton seems to reach for a pretense of “knowledge” by referring to “Section 230.”

Which offers us the extra big lesson we can take from her unctuous utterances.

She means Section 230 of the 1996 Telecommunications act, which provides legal protection for websites or internet providers. That legal protection comes in the form of a federal block on defamation suits against the platforms or the internet service providers (ISPs) should a user post an item that another user believes is false and has been damaging to his or her reputation. It also provides protection from states attempting to criminally prosecute platforms or internet providers should users post images or other content that has been derived through criminal actions – material such as child pornography, or copyrighted material that someone posts without explicit consent.

But the key is that the federal government, presumably the unconstitutional Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has to deem the website owners or the ISP company as “curating” the content in “good faith.”

Related: Free Speech Under Fire: Washington Post, Politicians, Push Censorship Agenda

That, clearly, is something that Hillary Clinton wants to define, via the bureaucracy at the FCC, based on what she believes is appropriate, truthful, or politically advantageous.

The US Constitution does provide the Congress with the power to block or not block lawsuits from entering federal courts, but Congress cannot claim the power to stop states from enforcing their own speech codes. The First Amendment only prohibits Congress from infringing on the freedom of speech and the press. It leaves those matters to the states and their constitutions.

So, Hillary not only is off-base when it comes to the arrogant assumption that she and others of her ilk can decide what is “truthful” and then pursue censorship accordingly, she is half-baked on Section 230.

Smirconish is a lawyer and could have countered her idiocy. But he did not. You know who did? Left-wing Young Turks host Cenk Uyger.

Perhaps "conservative" Donald Trump will do so. Then again, he recently said that FoxNews should not “be allowed” to broadcast false claims by Kamala Harris, which was very disappointing, especially since leftists took many of Trump’s old, valid statements about pop media being the enemy of America as meaning he wanted to enforce censorship.

Now, how can anyone defend Trump and claim that his old statement were taken out of context?

It’s hard to find heroes for free speech when one looks at the classic “duopoly” of Dems and Republicans. But at least we can keep tabs on their various statements, and their different degrees of hatred for speech, and we can warn others.

We can do so, as long as we are free to continue speaking.

Follow MRCTV on X!