The New Right Takes on Big Tech

[Standing Wolf]

Chilling censorship is a reasonable, conservative position.

Is it "censorship" if I refuse to let you put a campaign sign in my yard?

[Chris]

...[A] If a media entity wishes to restrict certain viewpoints from being presented on the platform which it owns, and it does so voluntarily, no one's First Amendment right to free speech is being curtailed. [B] On the other hand, it could be argued that if the State seeks to impose some kind of what amounts to a new "Fairness Doctrine" on the media, a very clear violation of both the First Amendment right to free speech and of a free press is being endorsed....

[A] I agree with but that is not what is being argued here or the previous thread on this topic.

[B] is just about what the Platforms are arguing and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals chewed up and spit out in rejection in their finding.

That isn't limited government.

No, it's not libertarian limited government. It abandons, as I said earlier, the fusion of conservative and libertarian thought brought together back on the 1950s, and returns to older paleoconservatism.

[Peter1469]

Consider the difference. Not so long ago you had the progressive Biden Administration talking about the government institution disinformation boards that would censor points of view. Here we have the "new right" talking about using the government to stop censorship of points of view. The "new right" might well abandon libertarian means for conservative goals. Therein lies the difference between modern liberalism and "new conservatism."

That's fine.

[Peter1469]

Not it isn't. When Congress hauls Big Tech CEOs into hearings- twice- where they $#@! about disinformation (only from the right) then Big Tech ramps up banning, shadow banning, etc, of conservatives and views contrary to the agenda (like Hunter's laptop) prior to an election there is a prima facie case for Big Tech acting as a government agent for 1st Amendment purposes.

Do you have any examples not discussed elsewhere? Why did you feel it important to use this example in this thread?

Yes, Peter, we've already been over the "agent of the state" claim, and it's baseless. If a media entity wishes to restrict certain viewpoints from being presented on the platform which it owns, and it does so voluntarily, no one's First Amendment right to free speech is being curtailed. On the other hand, it could be argued that if the State seeks to impose some kind of what amounts to a new "Fairness Doctrine" on the media, a very clear violation of both the First Amendment right to free speech and of a free press is being endorsed.

The self-described "conservatives" referred to in the OP want - to refer back to an analogy I made earlier - the State to force the Editor to publish their letter, regardless of whether it violates the beliefs or conscience of the owner. And it supports that demand with the fiction that we're all constantly in the grip and at the mercy of the social media colossus through which all human communication and interaction must of necessity flow.



Are you saying that the individuals and groups who recognized and supported the right of a business owner to refuse to communicate messages it found unacceptable - whether in cakes, t-shirts, flyers or what-have-you - "never were" conservatives? That they (along with the courts) got it wrong, and that the State should have prevailed and imposed a mandate for those business owners to print and distribute whatever was submitted to them?

Peter, the bottom line is that if a group of like-minded individuals believe that their various messages are not getting out to the public, the Constitutionally acceptable answer is not to demand that the power of the State be applied to force everybody with a printing press, bullhorn or website to roll over and do their bidding. That isn't limited government.

[Standing Wolf]

Not it isn't. When Congress hauls Big Tech CEOs into hearings- twice- where they $#@! about disinformation (only from the right) then Big Tech ramps up banning, shadow banning, etc, of conservatives and views contrary to the agenda (like Hunter's laptop) prior to an election there is a prima facie case for Big Tech acting as a government agent for 1st Amendment purposes.

Do you have any examples not discussed elsewhere? Why did you feel it important to use this example in this thread?

Can you explain the question? Are you asking why I objected to your characterization of the media as a state agent in this thread? Because you made the claim in this thread.

[Chris]

Two follow-ups on the National Conservatism Conference.

NATCON AGAINST THE BLACK PILL

What did not surprise me about the conference was the lack of enthusiasm for Donald Trump. I encountered plenty of people who were incensed by the FBI’s raid of Mar-a-Lago, and who were grateful for certain victories Trump achieved in office, especially the appointment of justices willing to overturn Roe. But the same people often rued the prospect of Trump running in 2024. The favorite at the conference was Ron DeSantis, who spoke one evening and brought the listeners to their feet in applause multiple times. But this doesn’t explain what seemed to me to be pervasive Trump fatigue. Certain critics of National Conservatism believe the movement is merely an attempt to offer an intellectual veneer to what they see as Trump’s demagoguery; as a result, they refuse to take seriously the movement’s ideas, especially its critique of the conservative establishment’s complicity with neoliberalism and milquetoast response to woke revolutionaries. NatCon critics are too often obsessed with Trump. It blinds them to the emergence of a counter-elite sympathetic to, but not coextensive with, populism. National Conservatism is the party of this counter-elite.

That article also provided a link to National Conservatism: A Statement of Principles. Here's one that definitely shows they are shifting away from the 1950's fusion with libertarianism.

6. Free Enterprise. We believe that an economy based on private property and free enterprise is best suited to promoting the prosperity of the nation and accords with traditions of individual liberty that are central to the Anglo-American political tradition. We reject the socialist principle, which supposes that the economic activity of the nation can be conducted in accordance with a rational plan dictated by the state. But the free market cannot be absolute. Economic policy must serve the general welfare of the nation. Today, globalized markets allow hostile foreign powers to despoil America and other countries of their manufacturing capacity, weakening them economically and dividing them internally. At the same time, trans-national corporations showing little loyalty to any nation damage public life by censoring political speech, flooding the country with dangerous and addictive substances and pornography, and promoting obsessive, destructive personal habits. A prudent national economic policy should promote free enterprise, but it must also mitigate threats to the national interest, aggressively pursue economic independence from hostile powers, nurture industries crucial for national defense, and restore and upgrade manufacturing capabilities critical to the public welfare. Crony capitalism, the selective promotion of corporate profit-making by organs of state power, should be energetically exposed and opposed.