The Heritage Foundation Sells Out for a Place at Facebook’s Table

The truth is there doesn’t even need to be any regulations, all that would need to be determined by U.S. lawmakers would be to apply a new definition to what these companies really are, and that they need to comply with the right to free speech guaranteed by the constitution, in the same way the government is required to.

Another so-called conservative organization has compromised its integrity, this time with the Heritage Foundation quislings becoming the controlled opposition by accepting a place at Facebook’s table, and immediately starting to parrot the company’s line.

In an article on Breitbart called ‘Heritage Foundation Defends Facebook’s ‘Right’ to Censor, Will Oppose Regulation,’ the think tank cited the company being a private company as the reason it has a legal right to censor whatever content it wants. When it says private company, it means a company operating in the private sector.
This appears to be sound reasoning, but is in fact disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. It’s of course true in the U.S. that a business operating in the private sector isn’t subject to the terms of free speech imposed upon the government by the constitution. It can engage in censorship according to its internal guidelines.
So what’s my problem with it? It’s much of what Klon Kitchen, the senior research fellow for technology at the Heritage Foundation, said throughout the interview with Breitbart.
The first clue as to selling out in order to get a seat at the Facebook table, was how he gushed over being treated so nice by Facebook. He said this: “…in terms of their response to us and their professionalism, they’ve been nothing but top notch.”
Why this is troubling is almost everything else Kitchen said in light of this fine treatment, was totally aligned with the talking points of the company, resulting in the Heritage Foundation becoming part of the controlled opposition of the leftist-dominated social networking company.
Below is just one quote that proves the organization has devolved into quisling status.

“I think right now, we have free speech on these platforms. Just about any political view that you want to have, you can get on these platforms. They certainly have community standards.”

Hopefully you can see from the above assertion why the Heritage Foundation has become controlled opposition. The major problem is it’s only telling a part of the story. Does Kitchen really think we believe his statement after the plethora of people on the right have been censored by Facebook?
How the organization will be used by their puppet masters on the left will be to offer comfort and support to our enemies while they refuse to support  the strong voices on the right that are uncompromising. Think of Paul Ryan and Obama to get an idea of what is unfolding here.
This is why using the private company defense is intellectually dishonest. It’s not really what is their concern here. There is no doubt in my mind they don’t like the stronger right that is emerging, and they are aligning with the goals of our enemies to attack us. It’s more important to these weaklings to be treated nice by Facebook than to go to war to defend and preserve Western civilization and its Christian foundation.
It gets worse. When asked about the European Union (EU) imposing its hate speech laws on U.S. citizens via Facebook, his pathetic response was it was Facebook’s “decision to make,” going back to his “private company” argument.
The fact he wouldn’t even say whether or not the practice was a good one or bad one is a piece of evidence confirming my thesis that the organization is now controlled opposition.
Private company argument
Let’s look a little deeper into the private company argument. Here is what Kitchen said:
“I think it is better for consumers and the American people to have as free a space for open dialogue and diversity of viewpoints as possible. … But they’re a private company, and the Heritage Foundation is going to be very clear about a private company’s right to organize and conduct its business as it sees fit.”
My rejection of this is based upon the reality that Facebook and other social networking giants can no longer be considered private companies, even if they are legally organized in that way. When a foreign entity can make laws and accompanying penalties, and they are adopted by social networking sites located in the U.S., these companies have become de facto arms of those governments. They have lost the right to be treated as private companies. That means the laws associated with free speech and guaranteed by the U.S. constitution for U.S. citizens, must be applied to Facebook and other social networking platforms based in the U.S.
What has happened is these companies are becoming a mixture of government and business, which is part of what fascism was in Germany. They have become entangled together in a way that can’t be extricated. The only answer is to treat them like they are a form of government; that means they should be required to adhere to free speech rights in America, in the same way the government is. To not do so is to be subjected to the laws and whims of foreign powers.
In regard to the refusal of the organization to back up regulating the company in relationship to censorship, Kitchen said this in regard to its influence on news and politics:
“I think it’s clear that they challenge traditional understandings of all those things, but I don’t think it rises to the level of government regulating how they conduct their business or constraining them in other ways.”
Based upon what I mentioned above, this is another way of saying fake news and hate speech that are defined by governments can be applied in this country via social networking platforms, and people and organizations can be censored.
What this effectively is doing is bypassing free speech in the U.S. and defining it in terms of the globalists. That’s why I say Facebook and other social networking platforms need to be subject to U.S. free speech laws in the same way the government is. This is why the Heritage Foundation has in practice become quislings and controlled opposition.
They are allowed to be part of the process by Facebook in order to give the appearance of principled and meaningful opposition, when in fact they have now become nothing more than another mouthpiece for Facebook, in the name of conservatism.
It’s hiding behind the idea of not regulating the private sector because a business has a right to do what it wants within the laws of the U.S. The problem there, as I’ve argued, is social networking sites are no longer simply private businesses, but under direct influence of governments around the world by the laws they enact and enforce in regard to the speech that is allowed on the platforms. The embracing of these laws and applying them to the American people is where the mixture is and the problem lies.
To put it more clearly, foreign countries and some states are using Facebook and other social network platforms as a private enforcement arm of the Democrat Party, liberals and SJWs. That in effect means these should no longer be identified as private companies, but the extension of governments they have become.
The censorhship of Christians, the new right, libertarians and conservatives at the behest of governments and other organizations confirms they must be held to the standards of free speech guaranteed by the constitution, not the standards of the private sector.
The globalists are doing and end run around the American constitution and are attempting to impose their definition of fake news and hate speech on the American people. Much of that is directly targeting Christians in the country that oppose much of the agenda of the globalists.
The Heritage Foundation, through their dishonest appeal to non-interference in a company operating in the private sector, has aligned itself with our enemies and opposes regulations that will require Facebook to allow all ideas and points of views to be expressed on the site.
The truth is there doesn’t even need to be any regulations, all that would need to be determined by U.S. lawmakers would be to apply a new definition to what these companies really are, and that they need to comply with the right to free speech guaranteed by the constitution, in the same way the government is required to.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend