For years, I (like Mama Liberty) have defended the rights of private business – whether a sole proprietor, a partnership, or a corporation. Those rights include who they are willing to do business with, what they allow to be done on their private property (even if open to the public), and what they allow their services to be used for.
I recognize that there have always been limits to that – for instance, that enslaving other humans cannot be tolerated even if it is on private property. Mama Liberty and I disagreed on whether or not the God-given right to self-defense (bearing arms) could be restricted by a private business or not.
But we agreed that a private publisher or communications company (such as a broadcaster, an internet service, etc.) do have the inherent right to “refuse service” to anyone, whether it is advertising, opinion, news, or any other information. We agreed that any forum, public or private, which is not government, can refuse to publish something. We agreed that a private store or mall, even if open to the public, had the right (and power) to deny someone an opportunity to circulate petitions, make speeches, or do other things such as that.
I am now reconsidering my understanding of this.
Do we, as private citizens or owners/operators of business, have a right to refuse the basic, God-given right of freedom of speech and expression, to people? Or is it the REASON that we refuse people that right, and not the refusal itself, that is wrong?
It is a difficult concept to grasp and sort out. In part because we see more and more collusion between government and private business. And because the fundamental understanding of the importance of free speech is so important to liberty.
Let me provide an example at length: I got this info from Jeff Brown: Two doctors in Kern County California did extensive COVID-19 testing early in the official pandemic.
The doctors also shared serological testing data from Stanford University, and they determined that COVID-19 had likely reached 4.7 million people throughout California. (Even as of 12 MAY 2020, California only reports 71,000 cases.) With 1,227 confirmed deaths in the state at the time of the interview, that results in a case fatality rate of 0.026%. That is LESS than the dead from “regular” influenza in the State.
The two doctors communicated with a network of physicians across the country as well, who shared that hospital administrators were pressuring some doctors to claim COVID-19 as the cause of death on death certificates. This is being reported more and more. And indeed, there is documentation that the CDC sent explicit directions to hospitals around the country to do exactly that – a positive COVID-19 test confirmation is not required. Hospital administrators have just been following the CDC’s directions. Dr. Erickson spoke with doctors who were not comfortable with this. (Imagine!)
The interview with the two physicians was posted on YouTube. What happened? YouTube banned the video and took it down. YouTube claimed that the interview was “a violation of community guidelines.” In other words, TRUTH is violating community guidelines. As determined by YouTube and their owner, Google.
DOES YOUTUBE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS? DOES NBC OR YAHOO? DOES ANY PUBLISHER?
Therein lies my current dilemma. YouTube and the others are private entities even though they provide a public service. They OWN the resource – their electronic pages and software and space and time. Just as I own my body, my house, my time and my thoughts.
But this IS NOT liberty. This is indeed TYRANNY. Private tyranny – private business cooperating in suppression of free speech with government. Enough is enough: ANY tyranny is evil and must be fought. I am increasingly associating this directly with fascism, though the question must be asked: who is in control? Is the State – government – forcing these things from being published by the media? Or is the media part of some shadowy entity that controls the government? Are they mutually dependent parasites on each other (and the rest of us)?
And so, am I justified morally if I take action against this sort of thing? Or am I denying others (the individuals who own and control Facebook and Twitter and the like) their God-given liberties?
More discussion on this subject in the future is appropriate. Your thoughts on this are appreciated and solicited.
The Price of Liberty 
I agree with you. I am a law student and have been virtually in a state of shock since March 2020 about what the government is able to do under the law. I am usually pro-business (like you), but I agree that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, IG serve public functions, and are more akin to traditional public forums than anything else. Their purpose/function is individual expression, exchange, connections, etc. If anything fits into the public forum category, surely these social media sites qualify! Check out press secretary Jen Psaki’s statements regarding the federal Surgeon General’s “dealings” with Facebook. This is the first tangible, pseudo-concrete evidence I’ve found of involvement of the federal government and Facebook to “censor” “misinformation” — i.e. quell free speech. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/07/15/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-and-surgeon-general-dr-vivek-h-murthy-july-15-2021/
LikeLike
Corporations aren’t private property or private businesses.
LikeLike
Kent, I understand – but neither are they “public” – rather, they are an obscene and perverse mix. Still, in most people’s eyes, and for most purposes, they are viewed as “private” and many libertarians have argued that. So I apologize for being imprecise in my language. Thanks for correcting me; I should know better and explain better. I’ve been fighting the battle against congregations (churches) incorporating (or registering) for a long time, and understand the difference!
LikeLike
Pingback: Private tyranny — less evil than “public” or “government” tyranny? – Rational Review News Digest
“Do we, as private citizens or owners/operators of business, have a right to refuse the basic, God-given right of freedom of speech and expression, to people?”
No.
Fortunately, we don’t have the ABILITY to do that either.
Now even if the “we” in question is YouTube or Facebook.
LikeLike
Re: property owners banning guns, this was historically simple — by the act of denying right to defense, the host assumed full responsibility for the safety of his guests. In a time of “eye for an eye” justice, leaving guests defenseless was a big decision. Might work well in this age of cowards. Everyone who owns, manages or works at a “gun-free” zone is PERSONALLY responsible for the lives of those he willfully disarmed, to the point of a gibbet, if necessary.
I once thought that simply removing the essentially blanket immunity to libel laws would be sufficient to deal with the fascism. Make Youtube legally responsible for which opinions they publish, like any other publisher, and they would probably drop the “community standards” sham. BUT, the venue in which it would be heard is government-controlled courts, and it’s getting increasingly hard to find “judges” who do not stick their thumbs on the scale of “justice”.
Draining the swamp is a self-evident failure. Time to love the swamp. Fill the reflecting pool with alligators and keep them well-fed with all the petty tyrants.
LikeLike
The Natural Law (initiation of force or fraud) applies whether its public or private doing it. What they are doing is wrong, what to do about seems to be the problem. Shunning works locally but doesn’t seem effective on a global scale.
LikeLike