Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Rand Paul proposes Free Speech Protection Act

  1. #1

    Rand Paul proposes Free Speech Protection Act

    RELATED: Missouri & Louisiana sue feds for colluding with Big Tech censors

    Rand Paul introducing plan to protect free speech from government-Big Tech collusion
    https://www.based-politics.com/2023/...ech-collusion/
    Jack Hunter (11 July 2023)

    On July 4th, a federal judge issued an injunction against the Biden administration that would largely prevent government agencies from contacting Big Tech companies. The judge believed the federal government was dictating the kinds of speech that should be allowed on major social media platforms—a violation of the First Amendment.

    Now, Sen. Rand Paul is following up.

    Fox News reports that “Paul is expected to propose the Free Speech Protection Act on Tuesday, which would impose harsh penalties on federal employees and contractors who leverage their positions to attack speech protected under the First Amendment.”

    In other words, instead of government agencies and officials manipulating or censoring your speech on Twitter or Facebook without worry, they would face some sort of punishment.

    Including possibly getting sued.
    The story continued, “The bill would empower American citizens to sue the government and executive branch officials who violate the First Amendment of the Constitution, according to Paul’s office.”

    Many on the Right and Left have clamored to end Section 230, which protects social media platforms from being liable for their users’ language. But many defenders of Section 230 have argued that doing so would essentially end the internet as we know it, with companies like Twitter and Facebook becoming even more censorious.

    Paul’s bill does something different. Those in government who censor speech would be directly liable for violating Americans’ First Amendment rights.

    Fox News noted that Paul’s office said his legislation “would mandate the frequent publication of and public access to reports on communications between an executive branch agency and a content provider. It bars agencies from using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemptions to stop the disclosure of illegal communications. Paul’s bill also makes sure federal grant money does not go to entities that seek to label media outlets as sources of disinformation or misinformation, and ends several authorities and programs that the senator’s office says threaten Americans’ constitutional rights.”

    The federal judge who issued the injunction against the Biden administration last week, Terry Doughty of Louisiana, wrote in his opinion, “If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 07-11-2023 at 09:31 AM.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Dr. Rand Paul Joins OAN to discuss Free Speech Protection Act – July 13, 2023

    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Dr. Rand Paul Joins OAN to discuss Free Speech Protection Act – July 13, 2023

    This is probably a dumb question but are there any penalties in the constitution for politicians who violate it? I don't think there are. If that's true it seems like a flaw, politicians can just constantly violate the constitution if the only "penalty" is that whatever terrible thing they were trying to do just gets struck down.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    This is probably a dumb question but are there any penalties in the constitution for politicians who violate it? I don't think there are. If that's true it seems like a flaw, politicians can just constantly violate the constitution if the only "penalty" is that whatever terrible thing they were trying to do just gets struck down.
    There are no such penalties.

    In fact, there are a number of dodges designed specifically to allow the government and its agents to avoid accountability for their violations.

    "Qualified Immunity" ... "Absolute Immunity" ... "Sovereign Immunity" ...

  6. #5

    Thumbs down Senate Votes Against Rand’s Free Speech Amendment

    Democrats and Lone Republican Vote Against Dr. Rand Paul’s Free Speech Amendment in HSGAC Markup



    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee offered his Free Speech Protection Act as an amendment to S.2251, the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2023. The amendment would prohibit federal employees and contractors from using their positions to censor and otherwise attack speech protected by the First Amendment. The amendment would impose mandatory severe penalties for those individuals that violate this rule.

    Unfortunately, several senators voted against Dr. Paul’s amendment, choosing not to protect Americans’ free speech rights, and the amendment did not pass. The final vote tally was 6 YEAS and 9 NAYS, and can be viewed HERE at the 1 hour mark.

    “Americans are free people and we do not take infringements upon our liberties lightly. The time has come for resistance and to reclaim our God-given right to free expression,” said Dr. Paul. “Under my Free Speech Protection Act the government would no longer be able to cloak itself in secrecy to undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans.”



    In addition to protecting Americans’ First Amendment rights, the amendment would also:


    • Require executive branch agencies to regularly publish reports that details their communications with content providers. These reports must be publicly accessible, and agencies would be prohibited from employing any FOIA exemption to withhold information related to these communications.
    • Ensure that federal grant money is not awarded to any entity that seeks to label media organizations as sources of misinformation or disinformation.
    • Revoke authorities that threaten free speech and other constitutionally protected rights.



    You can read the Free Speech Protection Act amendment HERE.

    A companion bill to Dr. Paul’s stand-alone Free Speech Protection Act has been introduced in the House by Chairman Jim Jordan.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana
    Many on the Right and Left have clamored to end Section 230, which protects social media platforms from being liable for their users’ language. But many defenders of Section 230 have argued that doing so would essentially end the internet as we know it, with companies like Twitter and Facebook becoming even more censorious.
    I remember when Trump was president a majority of people here on this forum wanted to punish tech companies the same way. Also using anti trust laws.

    My argument was we need less government interference, not more. From what I remember you were one of the few that agreed with me.

  8. #7
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Madison320 again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Many on the Right and Left have clamored to end Section 230, which protects social media platforms from being liable for their users’ language. But many defenders of Section 230 have argued that doing so would essentially end the internet as we know it, with companies like Twitter and Facebook becoming even more censorious.
    I remember when Trump was president a majority of people here on this forum wanted to punish tech companies the same way. Also using anti trust laws.

    My argument was we need less government interference, not more. From what I remember you were one of the few that agreed with me.
    I did agree - and I still do.

    From another thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Sic the states on the feds, not the feds on Big Tech.
    And from yet another thread (emphasis in the original):
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    To put things in a nutshell: anything that does not involve the circumscription, curtailment, or reduction of government power is at best a complete and utter waste of time (and at worst is counter-productive and actively dangerous). Any legislation, course of action, etc. that does not aim at curtailing, reducing, or eliminating government power is simply not to be taken seriously as a "solution" to anything.
    This is the way (emphasis added):
    Many on the Right and Left have clamored to end Section 230, which protects social media platforms from being liable for their users’ language. But many defenders of Section 230 have argued that doing so would essentially end the internet as we know it, with companies like Twitter and Facebook becoming even more censorious.

    Paul’s bill does something different. Those in government who censor speech would be directly liable for violating Americans’ First Amendment rights.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post

    I did agree - and I still do.

    From another thread:


    And from yet another thread (emphasis in the original):


    This is the way (emphasis added):

    And those posts you made were before the twitter files. I knew it didn't make sense that the tech companies would be that biased on their own. Now we know the government was forcing them to censor.

    I'm still not sure whether 230 is a good thing or not. I tend to think it's a bad thing. Either way the important thing is that it has to be all or nothing. Either all companies are liable for content or none of them are. The worst idea is for the government to selectively enforce liability on only the "bad" companies.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

  12. #10
    https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1773744194462314720


    'You Paid Them $3 Million': Rand Paul Grills FBI Director On Censoring Americans On Social Media
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPaN00PBq_Y
    {Forbes Breaking News | 31 October 2023}

    At a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) grilled FBI Director Chris Wray on the FBI's connections to social media companies.




Similar Threads

  1. Dr. Rand Paul Joins Jesse Watters to Talk Free Speech and More
    By Brian4Liberty in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-18-2023, 11:29 AM
  2. Repeal Espionage Act and Its Threat to Free Speech, Urges Rand Paul
    By WisconsinLiberty in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-27-2022, 12:23 PM
  3. UK: Tony Blair Think-Tank Proposes End to Free Speech
    By Origanalist in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-12-2019, 02:50 PM
  4. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-11-2013, 04:52 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-13-2012, 07:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •