Hillary Clinton DEMANDS tech censorship, says ‘we lose control’ if speech is FREE | Free Media

Video Transcript

Welcome to Truly Right View
Let The Truth Be Told!

Are you ready to hear the real truth unfiltered by bias media or government intervention?
Subscribe to the Truly Right View Channel

[Music] welcome back to free media I’m Amber Duke and I’m Robbie Suave Hillary Clinton recently sounded the alarm on unmoderated social media warning that without proper oversight we lose total control a stance that has sparked a heated debate about the risk of prioritizing content moderation over free speech Let’s watch uh we should be uh in my view repealing something called section 230 which gave um you know platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just passrs 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 X or uh Instagram or Tik Tok whatever they are if they don’t moderate uh and monitor the content uh we lose total control and it’s not just the social and psychological effects it’s real harm Hillary Clinton wasn’t the only top Democrat raising the alarm in the name of misinformation at a recent World economic Forum panel former US senator John KY singled out the First Amendment as a significant obstacle in the government’s fight against disinformation Kerrie who served as the Biden administration’s climate Envoy pointed out that Free Speech protections complicate efforts to manage the spread of false information boohoo let’s watch people go and then people sell select where they go for their news or for their information and then you just get into a vicious cycle so it’s really really hard much harder to build consensus today than at any time in the 45 50 years I’ve been involved in this and and you know there’s a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities uh in order to guarantee that you’re going to have you know some accountability on facts Etc but look if people go to only one source and the source they go to is sick and uh you know has an agenda and they’re putting out disinformation uh our first amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just you know hammer it out of existence so what you need what we need is to is to win the ground win the right to govern it’s not win the war of ideas it’s win the right to govern win the right to power so we can Hammer these Outlets that we don’t like out of existence yeah I saw some people who are you know otherwise I agree with on some things free speech supporters saying this clip was blown out of proportion because he wasn’t saying to get rid of the First Amendment but he winning the right to govern what what do you mean by that he’s saying that the First Amendment stops us from doing the kind of governance we want to do so I I did reading between the lines see that he was wanting to do something about that and again it could be something short of like repealing the First Amendment which is obviously never going to happen but Tim Walls for instance has done this classic conflation on Free Speech but saying that hate speech and misinformation um are not included under Free Speech which is constitutionally incorrect uh hate speech is very famously protected by the First Amendment there hasn’t been any separate Juris Prudence on misinformation but we know basically for certain it would get treated the same way that our current Supreme Court would not carve out some misinformation um exception so uh and then going back to what Hillary Clinton said it’s so key that line we lose control well who is we we is Democratic and Republican political leaders and federal bureaucrats and more traditional media organizations that are resentful of the ability of anyone to critique them on social media and there’s nothing they can do about it because of the tremendous liability protections that allow us to do the show we’re doing right now allow us to do Rising allows to any number of other media projects to spout off because the companies don’t have to worry that Twitter’s going to get sued if you or I have some crazy tweet that’s what makes the whole thing possible and it’s what Hillary Clinton’s and John K’s hate it’s what they hate because it makes criticism of them so much easier and also they don’t mean it when they say that their number one goal is to protect or save democracy because democracy doesn’t exist without Free Speech people have to have access to information so that they can make an informed decision when they go to The Ballot Box and if one party or one group of elite bureaucrats controls the flow of information then you don’t really have a democracy right um so all of their blustering and they bloviating about how in this election if we don’t vote the right way then democracy is going to be over maybe but probably not from the person that you think is going to take it away because you’re the ones that want to limit people’s ability to have some kind of agency over their own lives and over the candidates that they’re voting for I think ever since um Elon Musk acquired um x and x has become a more um friendlier place for conservative or dissident viewpoints I think now it’s it’s kind of become clearer to many elected Republicans that they needed to back off some of this um commonalities they were finding with Democrats on specifically the section 237 and I know you and I have some different views on antitrust and things like that but like I’ve long criticized the Ted Cruzes and the Josh holl and even Donald Trump himself who’s like repeals 230 that’s what Elizabeth Warren wants to do this Amy clomar and Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton and John KY want to do this because they know that if you got rid of this it would make much less possible much less likely a large category of speech that is outside their control and I think that was very much forgotten by many Republicans in their understandable frustrations with a lot of the moderation on social media that we now know was largely done at the behest of the federal government itself and was not actually freely chosen in a Marketplace by these companies so I’m hoping there’s been a backing off of this strategy of working with Democrats to achieve something that is going to be ruinous for free speech yeah and I think there has been and I definitely have more of an understanding of why they wanted to uh put take Section 230 protections away from these social media companies and it was because at the time they were all making editorial decisions about whose content was allowed on the platform and it was all going in One Direction now luckily you have Elon Musk owning Twitter SLX and the content moderation is about less uh partisan decision-making it’s in terms of like okay you can’t make threats against people um you can’t uh I guess well you can’t post pornography you can’t post like you can post pornography Twitter allows still allows pornography it’s so I thought I said can’t but maybe I said can’t but then you can’t post like graphic violent stuff you know without um going through like certain Hoops or whatever so there’s restrictions on what you can post but none of it is related to like the underlying political nature of your content and so in that case Twitter isn’t acting like a publisher anymore it is acting more of like a digital Marketplace of ideas which is what people want it to be but that is a very precarious position when you basically have one billionaire standing between the federal government and you as the only person willing to keep open a platform for some semblance of free speech but I I wouldn’t I don’t think he’s the only person because even look at Mark Zuckerberg I mean he now regrets a lot of the decisions question is if you think that’s sincere though I maybe I’m naive I think I think there’s a certain level of sincerity I mean it’s sincerity mixed with I think he understands that um alienating or pissing off half the country is not a good business strategy um I I think he understands that there will never be enough uh moderation of content to satisfy the Hillary clintons of the world so why would you even try and I think he recognizes that a lot of the steps that the CDC and the FBI pushed Facebook to take were actually fundamentally mistaken were were based on faulty premises were either involving uh information that ought to be subject to debate or was just flat out wrong as is the case of these are Russian Bots and all that kind of stuff I mean they he felt pushed to do the hunter Biden decision because of bad intelligence from the FBI so I I think there is a little bit of this like you you you live and you learn and um I I hope based on his commentary that they would reach kind of different decision I mean it’s clear that he’s does not want to be viewed as as so attached or loyal to democratic political project um as he was before and uh and so this is a little bit of a market correction taking place I hope so I mean he stopped the Zuck bucks program that he did in 2020 which is good and then I also think though that there’s an element of okay I think Trump might get reelected and I want to make sure that I’m not the target of potential social media regulation or big Tech regulation if the Republicans get get into office I want to make sure that they know that I’m kind of ostensibly on their side so it’s sort of I’ll believe it when I see it I want to see the actions match the words kind of thing um but I mean still the idea that our our ability to speak online is subject to the whims of like two or three rich people is not my ideal scenario yeah um I wish that there was an ability for there to be more competition in social media platforms and that’s simply not the case right now yeah I think the but I I do think the recognition that so much of the moderation was being outsourced to or done because of government decision- making has changed a lot of people’s minds about what the what the problem was and where this is coming from and I think we’re just all paying you know tracking it much more closely and and now unfortunately we did not get a favorable Supreme Court decision in Mery V Missouri which would have totally shut it down and I fully expect that the next admin ation is going to try to fire up again A A lot of the same stuff so and I think the RFK Junior case might make it there because they said that uh the epidemiologist didn’t have standing but I know a lower Court ruled that RFK Jr did so that could work its way up and maybe they will actually hear the merits of the case as opposed to dismissing it I’m I’m hopeful for that right and what I would like to see is is something the the there’s going to be regulation it should really be in my view not on the tech companies to do something but it should just it should be a restriction on the government’s messaging to the companies right like you don’t get to email a contentor at Twitter and say we think this tweet is wrong please take it down exactly which is almost like an internal you know government police yourself thing which maybe was nothing we can ever expect to actually happen but that would be ideal more free media right after this [Music]

Truly Right View: Advocating for Free Speech in the Age of Political Censorship

Introduction: What is Free Speech Today?

In a world where political discourse is dominated by big tech, cable news, and social media influencers, free speech is constantly under threat. From censorship of conservative viewpoints to the silencing of dissent on controversial issues, we are witnessing an alarming trend of restrictions on the most fundamental rights of any citizen in our Constitutional Republic: the right to speak freely.

But what does free speech truly mean in today’s context? Are we protecting it, or are we allowing authoritarian ideologies like socialism, communism, fascism, and dictatorships to erode it?

The Constitutional Perspective: Why Free Speech is Non-Negotiable

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is crystal clear: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” The Founding Fathers understood the importance of free speech in preserving a free society. Without it, the ability to challenge government, expose corruption, and advocate for truth would be crushed.

Yet today, under the guise of protecting people from “misinformation” and “hate speech,” powerful institutions are curbing our ability to express ideas that do not conform to their narratives.

Do we not see this as a slippery slope toward authoritarianism?

Shouldn’t we, as citizens, be the ones who decide what we can or cannot hear, not a centralized body or corporation?

Social Media and Cable News: Platforms or Gatekeepers?

Social media was once hailed as the bastion of free speech. It allowed ordinary individuals to share their thoughts, advocate for causes, and hold the powerful accountable. However, over the years, major platforms like Twitter (now X), Facebook, and YouTube have become gatekeepers rather than facilitators of free expression.

Algorithms favor certain ideologies, while alternative viewpoints—especially those with a more conservative or constitutional slant—are shadow-banned, demonetized, or outright censored.

Does this not resemble the tactics of monarchies, communistic or fascist regimes that control what their citizens can see and hear?

Shouldn’t a true democracy allow the free flow of ideas, even if those ideas challenge the status quo?

Social Media Influencers: Fighters for Freedom or Puppets of Censorship?

Many social media influencers, especially those aligned with constitutional values, have become modern-day warriors for free speech. Yet, they face intense backlash, censorship, and de-platforming for voicing opinions that challenge globalist or left-leaning narratives.

How many times have we seen influential voices banned simply for questioning government policies, election results, or health mandates?

Isn’t it concerning that only a select group of elites can decide what is “acceptable” discourse?

While some influencers fall in line with these restrictive policies, others have emerged as champions for free speech, using their platforms to resist censorship and uphold constitutional rights. The question is: Will we support these voices, or will we allow them to be drowned out by corporate and governmental censorship?

The Dangers of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism: A Threat to Free Speech

At the heart of socialism, communism, and fascism lies a common tactic—control over speech. These ideologies have historically sought to suppress dissent, limit expression, and create a monolithic narrative that favors those in power.

Look no further than authoritarian regimes past and present, where dissenters are imprisoned, media is state-controlled, and free speech is criminalized. Can we really ignore the striking similarities between these oppressive ideologies and the current state of political discourse in America?

Is the suppression of speech today not a precursor to more draconian measures tomorrow?

Should we not fight to preserve the right to freely express political, social, and economic ideas?

The Truly Right View: Defending Freedom in the Digital Age

At Truly Right View, we believe in the unwavering defense of free speech as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. We reject the encroaching influences of socialism, communism, fascism, and any form of dictatorship that seeks to undermine this fundamental right.

Our platform is dedicated to bringing you uncensored news, analysis, and commentary from a truly constitutional perspective. We provide a space where voices that have been silenced or marginalized can be heard, and where you—the citizen—can engage in the free exchange of ideas.

Join the Fight: Sign Up for Our Channel and Newsletter

Do you value free speech?

Do you believe that the right to express your thoughts, opinions, and beliefs should never be compromised, no matter how controversial they may be?

If so, we invite you to join the fight for free speech by subscribing to the Truly Right View channel and newsletter. Stay informed on the latest developments in free speech advocacy, political commentary, and constitutional rights. Together, we can stand against the creeping influence of censorship and authoritarianism.

Why wait for others to defend your rights?

Become part of a movement that fights for the truly free society envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

Will You Speak Up or Stay Silent?

In the end, the future of free speech rests in our hands. We can either stand idly by as it is eroded by corporate and governmental overreach, or we can take action to protect and preserve it.

Will you speak up for your rights, or will you allow them to be taken away piece by piece?

The choice is yours.

Subscribe to the channel for Truly Right View today, and support our patriots shop together, let’s ensure that free speech remains the bedrock of our Constitutional Republic.

Trending Tags

Trending Tags

Trending Tags

Trending Tags

Trending Tags

Hillary Clinton DEMANDS tech censorship, says ‘we lose control’ if speech is FREE | Free Media

Truly Right View: Advocating for Free Speech in the Age of Political Censorship

Introduction: What is Free Speech Today?

The Constitutional Perspective: Why Free Speech is Non-Negotiable

Social Media and Cable News: Platforms or Gatekeepers?

Social Media Influencers: Fighters for Freedom or Puppets of Censorship?

The Dangers of Socialism, Communism, and Fascism: A Threat to Free Speech

The Truly Right View: Defending Freedom in the Digital Age

Join the Fight: Sign Up for Our Channel and Newsletter

Will You Speak Up or Stay Silent?

Harris holds narrow lead over Trump in ‘blue wall’ states Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin: poll

Josh Shapiro wants Elon Musk INVESTIGATED for giving $1M to swing state voters | Free Media

Navigate Site

Follow Us

Welcome Back!

Create New Account!

Retrieve your password