Forum

Progressive Socialists demand full control over free speech, but in the name of democracy! This is NO joke! This week the anti-speech ringleader Hillary Clinton called for stricter regulation of social media content, especially the repeal of Section 230, raises an alarming question: Are progressive socialists aiming to control the narrative by dictating what free speech is and who gets to use it?

Clinton’s warning was words of panic "We Lose Total Control…….." She was alluding to the recent alliance between Trump and Elon Musk and the fear it generated into the progressive cabals. During a recent interview, Hillary Clinton suggested if platforms like Facebook, Twitter (now X), Instagram, and TikTok are not absolutely regulated, we will "lose total control" over the information being spread.

She expressed concerns about the potential dangers of unmonitored content. However, her remarks hint at a larger goal: the establishment of an absolute system where certain unapproved views and content deemed inappropriate or dangerous to democracy to be review and approved or rejected by a select few.  

The anti-speech cabal argued for the removal of Section 230, a legal provision that currently shields tech companies from being held liable for user-generated content. Repealing this law would hold platforms responsible for everything users post. On the surface, her call for regulation may seem like a way to ‘protect children’ and vulnerable populations. But underneath the noble rhetoric lies a broader implication: a desire to give progressive ideologies the power to define what content is acceptable.

The anti-speech cabal’s stance reflects a growing trend among progressive socialists to demand more oversight of online speech. What’s concerning is that this push for moderation could ultimately lead to selective enforcement, where certain opinions and viewpoints are allowed while others are suppressed. In such a system, those with opposing or dissenting views may find themselves deplatformed or silenced.

Who gets to decide what’s dangerous or harmful? Today it might be violent threats, but tomorrow it could be political opinions that don't align with progressive ideals. The result? A society where free speech is dictated by the few, not the many.

On the record, The anti-speech cabal painted a picture of social media as a dangerous, unregulated space that needs government intervention. But social media is also the modern ‘public square’ space where individuals of all backgrounds can engage in debate, share ideas, and challenge authority. The internet has given a voice to people who previously had no platform, disrupting traditional media gatekeepers.  

The ability for citizens to independently gather and disseminate information without the oversight of elites undermines the anti-speech cabal’s grip on public discourse.

Clinton's statement that "we lose total control" is telling. What is truly at stake is not the safety of children or the reduction of harmful content, but the ability of those in power to shape the narrative.

The anti-speech cabal also plays into the larger concerns about the "shadow government" and "the swamp," terms often used by critics to describe the entrenched bureaucratic and political elite that wields significant influence behind the scenes. Many Americans, especially those who support populist movements, see this elite class as disconnected from the everyday struggles of ordinary citizens.

The fear is the anti-speech cabal, seek to create a system where they control the flow of information and suppress voices that threaten their power. Think this is out of the question? Look what the enlightened, progessive master have doen to their Lame-Stream-Media! 

While the anti-speech cabal calls for “guardrails” to prevent harm, it’s essential to recognize the fine line between moderation and censorship. Who will determine what is "harmful" or "dangerous"? The anti-speech cabal’s solution would give that power to the government and tech platforms, which could open the door to abuse.

Final Word: The big question is: who should have the authority to regulate online speech, and what the consequences will be for free expression if that power falls into the wrong hands? 

My answer is simple: We the People have the power over free speech and to hell with regulations! If you don’t like it, don’t read it! Teach your children righteousness and they won’t fall victim to damaging rhetoric.