Mitt Romney Argues It Shouldn’t Be Illegal For Government To Curb “Misinformation” On Social Media

If you’re tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. In a recent Senate hearing, a substantial divergence of views surfaced between Senators Mitt Romney and Rand Paul, centering on the issue of whether the government should be authorized to employ Big Tech platforms to impede American citizens’ expressions. The debate was prompted by an amendment proposal from Senator Paul, coined as the Free Speech Protection Act. Senator Paul suggested that the First Amendment’s primary objective is to curtail the government’s intrusions on free speech rather than safeguarding the utterances of state employees. He expressed his own experiences with social media censorship, outlining his frustrations with platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube for their bias and removal of his content. He argued that these platforms, shielded by Section 230, possess disproportionate power, and with overt threats from the government, the balance seems disturbed. Paul raised issues about the government’s use of threats, citing cases where big tech companies faced potential repercussions such as antitrust actions or the removal of their Section 230 liability protection. These actions were purportedly applied as pressure tactics to make them comply with the government’s censorship demands. Consequently, Paul urged for an absolute prohibition of government interference in matters of free speech, including opinions, calling for this prohibition to be as strict as feasible. On the contrary, Senator Romney expressed his apprehension against such a stance. Romney went as far as arguing that calling for censorship on social…Mitt Romney Argues It Shouldn’t Be Illegal For Government To Curb “Misinformation” On Social Media