Speaking of dangerous (in the last post), who is more dangerous: a government bureaucrat or a private plutocrat? Often, the latter is more dangerous, since, depending on what position he holds in the company, and how much stock he controls, he may be accountable to virtually no one. If he decides to “suspend” your social-media account because you “violated the company’s hate-speech policy” (in other words, you told the truth about negro IQ), then, currently, he can, and the First Amendment be damned. He can censor whoever he wants, whenever he wants.

Of course we should regulate or police big tech companies to make sure they don’t violate the First Amendment, because currently, First Amendment violations only apply to governments (federal, state, local).

The violation of a guaranteed constitutional right by anyone should be an arrestable offense — no exceptions for millionaire or billionaire Jewish plutocrats who own/control vast empires of now-public media platforms [1].
.

[1] as long as you don’t threaten/urge violence or incite to riot, the First Amendment right to free speech is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, a document which of course trumps plutocrat-boy’s Marxist-like “hate-speech policy.” Most large social media platforms (e.g., Twitter) are public forums, so the First Amendment applies to them, e.g., see the U.S. Supreme Court decision Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) which held that a North Carolina law preventing certain people (criminals) from accessing and using social media violated the First Amendment — this means that social media speech is public speech; indeed, 70% of all Americans use large social media platforms, making them, by default, public media. I like to think about social media this way: a private company, Big Company X, may own the bullhorn I’m temporarily using at a rally, but the words I’m speaking through the bullhorn are my words. I own those words, not Big Company X, because I created those words. They are public words, so they are, or should be, protected by the First Amendment; in the 21st century, the reach of First Amendment protections must expand due to technology, and due to the War on White People and the War on Normal

Read more at Vanguard News Network Blog...