Christopher Jon Bjerknes
I suspect the Congress is going to try use the public outrage at the billionaire social media oligarchs to slip in legislation proscribing criticism of Jews, Judaism, Zionism and Israel. In the name of free speech, they are asking for the power to proscribe certain classes of speech, which have been defined by the Jewish lobby. They will sell this to conservatives as legislation protecting the rights of the Alex Joneses of the world. They will sell these laws to liberals as breaking the back of the monopolies.
We must contact our representatives in Congress and insist that no laws be passed which create privileged classes, or in any infringe upon our Constitutional rights to free speech. If they render social media platforms into utilities, we must carefully read the legislation and oppose any attempts to use the power of the State to impose sanctions on anyone violating rules which proscribe any form of free speech. They will attempt to create a police force and methods of imposing sanctions. This will be the "thought police". In the name of ending the thought police of the billionaire social media oligarchs, they will create a State "thought police" force.
As Alex Jones always said, "problem, reaction, solution". They created the problem by declaring Jones "dangerous". The reaction was to oppose this suppression of free speech. The proposed solution will be for the State to takeover the policing of public discussion and free up Alex Jones, and those like him, while proscribing and slipping in punishments for criticizing Jews, Judaism, Zionism and Israel.
Such illegal legislation violates the First Amendment on its face, and is therefore void on its face. It is also irrational; in that it presumes that Jews, Judaism, Zionism and Israel can do no wrong and therefore there can be no legitimate basis for criticism against them–but that is a separate issue from the issue of basic freedom of speech. There is no need to justify free speech. No one can proscribe it whether they agree with it, or not; whether they find it legitimate, or not. It is the speaker's choice what he or she wishes to say, and no one elses.
We have foolishly allowed some exceptions to the absolute right of free speech. The classic example is that it is illegal to scream out, "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no reason to believe a fire exists. But it is never illegal to scream out, "Fire!" when there are reasons to believe that a fire exists.
Therefore, it is irrational to ban certain classes of speech in order to shield special interest groups or sets of beliefs from criticism. It must never be illegal to warn the public about threats emanating from any group or set of beliefs. To argue otherwise is to irrationally and with no basis in fact claim that there can be no conflicting interests between groups in our society, and that certain protected classes and belief systems can never be considered dangerous or come to be scrutinized. It is to argue that theaters can never burn, and that enemies of privileged class are not enemies, despite the fact that someone believes that they are and wants to talk about the danger.
It is time to be vigilant and to be heard!