USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Any person who operates a social media Internet Web site with physical presence in California shall develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Internet Web site,” a bill by State Sen. Richard Pan would mandate. “The strategic plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
“(1) A plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories. (2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories. (3) Providing outreach to social media users regarding news stories containing false information. (4) Placing a warning on a news story containing false information. (c) As used in this section, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.”
“Physical presence” implies residency for lone bloggers and independent journalists, and either headquarters or resident representatives for larger concerns. For all but the largest, it could create a regulatory compliance burden that would effectively shut them down, and/or require them to publicly disavow their credibility, effectively issuing a state-mandated “confession” whenever they post unapproved information. The state would presume preemptive powers over the First Amendment and become a bureaucratic equivalent of Star Trek’s Keeper:
“Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking will be as quickly rewarded. You will find it an effective combination.”
Naturally, media bias against guns and for the engineered cultural terraforming that threatens to politically eradicate “legal” ownership will be the standard for “right thinking” that Pan’s Ministry of Truth will impose. And that’s hardly a surprise, as he’s not only for “sanctuary” and against guns, but he’s the son of immigrants from Taiwan who apparently believes America needs to be more like the place his parent’s fled, at least when it comes to the state maintaining a monopoly of violence. Still, it’s curious that his views on free speech appear to resemble nothing so much as the Great Firewall.
What I call the DSM has been looking for ways to regain its position as information gatekeeper ever since the internet revealed itself to give independents a way to go under, over around or through things the “mainstream” was blocking, ignoring or flat-out lying about. A “progressive” lawyer once even suggested taxing independents as a way to stifle competition, and I wouldn’t rule that out in the future if the powers that be feel like they can get away with it.
As is, we see the “social media” giants, Google and YouTube, Facebook and Twitter colluding in a way that would get antitrust actions filed against any other industry, to marginalize, punish with suspension or “shadow bans,” demonetize and “deplatform” any person or group the Southern Poverty Law Center and its ilk tar as a “hater.” You know, ordinary “red state/flyover” Americans, including “conservative” advocacy groups and activists, independent journalists, and pretty much any citizens who expose the dangers of “progressivism.”
No doubt there are plenty of manipulators and outright liars on the internet, and sorting through what’s real and what’s “fake news” can sometimes make determining truth an undertaking. The flip side to that is in a free and open exchange, our reputations and our credibility are all we have. Get caught being wrong too many times, or flat-out lying, and we can wind up with the politically biased perception of trustworthiness “enjoyed” by “the mass media.”
California has become a bellwether of sorts for political trends likely to migrate to the rest of the country (including excising ideological opponents altogether from the body politic). If the cultural Marxism continues to advance, look for draconian restrictions on speech from the federal government, as we first become more like Canada, Germany or the UK, and then China and beyond.
Pan’s bill is a step in that direction by those who would control all. They're bringing us to the day when they'll have enough political power to pass it and stacked the courts with judges who will rule it “Constitutional.”
That will effectively be tyranny, and ways to resist that are pretty much limited to having the means to say “No” and back that up to where aggressors perceive reasons not to press.
It’s not about guns, it’s about freedom. The old slogan is almost ubiquitous within the gun owner rights advocacy community because it’s true. The defensive capabilities they provide actually keep things peaceable. Just as arms in private hands can deter individual attackers, so too can they work on a societal scale.
Why do you think the totalitarians want them so badly?
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.