by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
With the constant flow of articles I continue to see in my news feed each day with Americans bemoaning the loss of what they call “free speech” as they idolize their favorite Big Tech Billionaires, I want to highlight some facts in this article about these Big Tech billionaires that so many Americans now adore, and give a basic civics lesson on just what exactly is “free speech.”
And while I will report my own bias in interpreting these facts, I want to state up front in the beginning just what my bias is, which is the same bias I have in ALL of the articles that I have written and published on Health Impact News for over 13 years now.
My bias is that there are only two ways of viewing people who live in the world today, which is that everyone in the world today is either living in the Kingdom of Darkness ruled by Satan and serving him, or has entered into the Kingdom of God, ruled by the Messiah Jesus Christ, and is serving him.
I am NOT a Christian, and do not belong to any religious groups or churches, so one does not have to have the same beliefs and biases as I do to read what I publish, as I believe everything I write has value for those who are truth seekers, and do not follow the popular culture and their narratives today that very powerful and evil people want the public to believe, and which divides us, whether it is politics, religion, or any other ideology that is the popular flavor of the day, such as “free speech.”
As I have written on our Contact Page for anyone who decides they want to contact me, everything published here is free of charge, as I do not even take donations, and therefore there is no client-vendor relationship here, and nobody has any “right” to criticize me or attack me, either privately or publicly by offering comments.
If you see something here you do not like, just don’t read it.
I don’t owe you anything.
I have received thousands, or perhaps even tens of thousands of comments from people over the years who have attacked me because I did not publish their comment, and have accused me of “censorship” for not doing so.
This is the big misconception of the Internet age, the misconception that if someone publishes something available for the public to read or watch at the publisher’s own expense on their own site, then the public has some kind of “right” to come onto that platform and publish their own views as well under the false belief in “free speech,” just because it is on the Internet and available to the public.
This is false.
Using this false logic outside of the Internet, someone could claim the same right to “free speech” and enter a publicly accessible meeting or gathering, such as a church, synagogue, or mosque, and start arguing with the pastor, rabbi, or imam in front of their congregations who support those religious leaders, criticizing them and attacking them in front of their supporters.
Likewise, if we apply this to non-government businesses, it would be the same false logic as saying someone has a right to “free speech” to enter a business location that is selling goods or services, and start speaking to the customers inside that establishment, and start telling them how terrible that business is and soliciting them to come to their competitor’s business instead.
Imagine having a dinner at a nice restaurant, where someone comes barging in and starts addressing everyone having dinner by criticizing the chef, the food, the owner and then telling them to come down the block to their restaurant instead.
Or imagine shopping at a Walmart store where someone comes in, gets on the store loudspeaker and announces: “We have a new blue light special on just about everything sold here, but you need to leave the store and go down the street to my store instead to get better prices for the things you are currently buying.”
Would the restaurant manager or Walmart manager allow such “free speech” to happen in their business?
No, of course they would not. They would escort them off the premises, squelching their so-called “free speech”, and their actions would be perfectly legal.
And yet if that business is on the Internet, the majority of the public today somehow feels that they have this right to “Free Speech” simply because it is on the Internet.
The dumbed-down American public has virtually no concept of what “free speech” really is today, because the Internet has empowered just about anyone to voice their opinions or gather a following on platforms they neither own, nor pay for, on free social media sites, and then cry “censorship!” whenever they cannot continue voicing their opinions or even lose access to these free platforms that other people own.
I’m sorry to be the one to expose your false belief, but you do NOT have that right to “free speech.”
Your right to “free speech” only exists on your own platform that you pay for and control.
And even on your own platform your right to “free speech” has legal limitations. You cannot defame someone, for example, and you cannot publish certain things that are not legal, such as child pornography or ways of promoting child sex trafficking.
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is first and foremost a right for a citizen to criticize their own government, and is not extended to private institutions.
Here is a good summary from the U.S. Courts government website:
What Does Free Speech Mean?
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.
The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:
“Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.”
Freedom of speech includes the right:
- Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).- Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).- To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).- To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).- To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).- To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).Freedom of speech does not include the right:
- To incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).- To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).- To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).- To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).- Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).- Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not apply to speech on private platforms.
First Amendment constraints don’t apply to private platforms, Supreme Court affirms
In a case closely watched for its potential implications for social media, the Supreme Court has ruled that a nonprofit running public access channels isn’t bound by governmental constraints on speech.
The case, which the conservative wing of the court decided in a split 5–4 ruling, centered around a Manhattan-based nonprofit tasked by New York City with operating public access channels in the area.
The organization disciplined two producers after a film led to complaints, which the producers argued was a violation of their First Amendment speech rights. The case turned on whether the nonprofit was a “state actor” running a platform governed by First Amendment constraints.
In a decision written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the conservative justices ruled that the First Amendment constraints didn’t apply to the nonprofit, which they considered a private entity. Providing a forum for speech wasn’t enough to become a government actor, the justices ruled.
Nowhere is the internet or social media discussed in the ruling, but the idea that the decision could be used to penalize social media companies was raised by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The groups argued that too broad of a decision could prevent other private entities like YouTube and Twitter from managing their platforms by imposing new constraints them.
The Internet Association, a trade group, said last year that such a decision could mean the internet “will become less attractive, less safe and less welcoming to the average user.” But today’s decision seems to assuage those concerns.
The liberal justices on the court, in a dissenting ruling, argued instead that the terms under which the nonprofit ran the channels for the city should have bound it to First Amendment constraints.
The nonprofit, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “stepped into the City’s shoes and thus qualifies as a state actor, subject to the First Amendment like any other.” (Source.)
While this was a split decision between the “conservative and liberal” justices, both sides acknowledge that a violation of the First Amendment right to “free speech” can only be enforced against “state actors”, and not private entities.
Again, refer to the examples I gave in the introduction to this article.
If a person in the U.S. has a “right” to free speech even in a private entity accessible to the public, then every religious institution in the U.S. could be required to allow such “free speech” in their churches, synagogues and mosques.
This is NOT free speech! This is an infringement on free speech, because those with the deepest pockets will then pay to have dissenters infiltrate all of these private institutions with their own propaganda, and you would not have a legal basis to remove them or prevent them from entering your property.
And yet this is exactly what people are advocating for on the Internet.
If this kind of “free speech” on private properties became law, then churches who preach and teach a “pro-life” message would have to provide equal time for their local Planned Parenthood office as well, for example.
No, that’s not “free speech”.
And if you don’t want that kind of “free speech” in your religious gathering, or in your own private discussion group or platform, then you have to allow that same “right” to the Big Tech billionaires, regardless of which side of the aisle they are on politically.
So if you don’t want that, then stop using their products, and develop your own place on your own platform and set your own rules, which is what I do on the Health Impact News network that I own and pay for.
Before I continue, I need to explain that the issue of “free speech” on the Internet is something I have dealt with for over 2 decades now, and is not simply just an academic exercise for me based on people’s opinions.
In 2000 and 2001, I started an Internet discussion group about the health benefits of Virgin Coconut Oil, a product that I began importing into the United States from the Philippines at the same time.
This was long before any of these Billionaire social media companies even existed. In those early days, these discussion groups basically evolved out of the old “Listerv” discussion groups that existed on Unix-based servers, mostly in academic circles.
Our first discussion group was on the Web, and I think it was called “eGroups”, which was bought by Yahoo.
As we developed a significant number of people who were beginning to use Virgin Coconut Oil and reporting the positive effects it was having in their lives, it did not take long for competitors and medical doctors, and I am sure undercover state actors, to start joining our group and trying to discredit everything we were teaching, and that people were experiencing.
The official U.S. Government position was then, and still is today, that because coconut oil is a saturated fat, it is dangerous for your health and leads to heart disease.
The actual science did not bear that out even then, and today the entire “lipid theory” of heart disease has been totally discredited by the REAL science.
There was most certainly a concerted effort by Big Pharma and the U.S. Government to shut us down.
These dissenting voices, who did not care at all about “free speech”, but more about how they might lose market share by allowing people to know about the health benefits of coconut oil, definitely harmed us.
We had people who began using coconut oil and saw positive changes in their health, but then they would go to their doctor who told them they were heading for a heart attack and a short life if they continued consuming coconut oil.
Of course this was simply an “appeal to authority” because many products in both Big Pharma and Big Food needed to demonize saturated fat in general, and coconut oil in particular, to justify their own products, such as statin drugs, which artificially lower people’s cholesterol, and the expeller-pressed seed oils from GMO corn and soybeans, two crops heavily subsidized by the government.
I, however, had a whole website showing the REAL science, including the fact that many native Pacific Island cultures, such as the Philippines where we lived for years, had consumed coconut oil for thousands of years with no increase in heart disease, which is mainly a modern disease.
So I had to hire a programmer and create our own discussion group that was entirely hosted on our own servers, so we could exclude the trolls and our enemies.
More recently, we quit all social media platforms in 2022 that did not allow us to turn off comments.
See this article I published in 2014:
and this one I published in 2022:
So for those of you who have accused me of “censorship” or not understanding what “free speech” is, I’m sorry, but YOU are the ones who are ignorant on this issue, not me, because I have fought this battle for 2 decades now, and as a result, any grocery store you walk into today will probably sell coconut oil, whereas 20 years ago that was not true.
You’re welcome.
This brings us to today, and the latest Billionaire that is being treated as a hero for “free speech”, Pavel Durov, the main owner of Telegram.
It is absolutely amazing to me how many people believe this guy is a champion for “free speech”, simply because they can say whatever they want to on his platform.
Almost everyone I have read online who has discussed this guy believes he has been arrested in France so they can censor his platform for political purposes.
So let me ask everyone who is claiming this: Have you been kicked off the Telegram platform? Has anyone been censored since his arrest?
And where is the evidence that he has been arrested for political purposes? I see a lot of speculation about that, and I actually agree that some of this speculation is probably true, but where is the evidence?
Politico published a piece that they claim is an “exclusive,” and this is what they have reported:
PARIS — French authorities issued arrest warrants for Telegram CEO Pavel Durov and his co-founder brother Nikolai in March, according to a French administrative document seen exclusively by POLITICO.
The document indicates the French undercover investigation into Telegram is wider and began months earlier than previously known. The case revolves around Telegram’s refusal to cooperate with a French police inquiry into child sex abuse.
Pavel Durov was arrested Saturday night by French police at Paris’ Le Bourget airport after border officials warned judicial authorities he was arriving on his private jet from Azerbaijan. He was indicted on Wednesday night with six charges related to illicit activity on the app and forbidden from leaving France.
His arrest has kicked off a diplomatic firestorm for the French government as well as a global outcry over free speech and the culpability of social media platforms for material shared by their users.
The arrest warrants were issued after the messaging platform gave “no answer” to an earlier judicial request to identify a Telegram user, according to the document, which was shared with POLITICO by a person directly involved in the case.
The document also stresses “Telegram’s almost non-existent cooperation” with both French and European authorities in other cases.
Warrants for Pavel and his brother Nikolai, the platform’s co-founder, were issued on March 25 over charges including “complicity in possessing, distributing, offering or making available pornographic images of minors, in an organized group.” French media had previously reported the probe was opened in July.
The warrants were issued after an undercover investigation into Telegram led by the cybercrime branch of the Paris prosecutor’s office, during which a suspect discussed luring underaged girls into sending “self-produced child pornography,” and then threatening to release it on social media.
The suspect also told the investigators he had raped a young child, according to the document.
Telegram did not respond to the French authorities’ request to identify the suspect. (Full article.)
But no, this claim of raping children and child sex trafficking could not be true, according to the people who worship this man as their idol, just because it is the one platform they have not yet been kicked off of.
It is most certainly political, they scream.
Really?
Do you have so much faith in Billionaires that you honestly believe they are being persecuted for being nice people just because they want to provide a platform with “free speech”?
The evidence points to the opposite, that these Billionaires are either pedophiles themselves, or empowered by pedophiles, and that they know full well that their platforms are being used for the lucrative child sex trafficking network.
Both Facebook and Twitter have been known to protect Child Sex Traffickers on their platforms.
How Facebook and Instagram became marketplaces for child sex trafficking
Our two-year investigation suggests that the tech giant Meta is struggling to prevent criminals from using its platforms to buy and sell children for sex
Over the past two years, through interviews, survivor testimonies, US court documents and human trafficking reporting data, we have heard repeated claims that Facebook and Instagram have become major sales platforms for child trafficking.
We have interviewed more than 70 sources, including survivors and their relatives, prosecutors, child protection professionals and content moderators across the US in order to understand how sex traffickers are using Facebook and Instagram, and why Meta is able to deny legal responsibility for the trafficking that takes place on its platforms.
While Meta says it is doing all it can, we have seen evidence that suggests it is failing to report or even detect the full extent of what is happening, and many of those we interviewed said they felt powerless to get the company to act.
Read the full investigative report at The Guardian.
See also:
“Our investigation into Meta’s social media platforms demonstrates that they are not safe spaces for children but rather prime locations for predators to trade child pornography and solicit minors for sex”
Twitter has had the same problems.
Second Child Sex Abuse Survivor Says Twitter Allowed Child Porn On Platform, Joins Lawsuit
Twitter had previously tried to dismiss the lawsuit claiming Section 230 immunity
A second plaintiff has joined a federal lawsuit against Twitter, alleging that the social media giant knowingly refused to remove images of his sexual abuse as a child.
John Doe #2 has joined the lawsuit, which as National File reported, was filed in January by John Doe #1, who when he was between 13 and 14, had sexual images and videos of him widely distributed on Twitter. John Doe #2 was also included in the images.
“Both plaintiffs were harmed by Twitter’s distribution of material depicting their sexual abuse and trafficking, and by Twitter’s knowing refusal to remove the images of their sexual abuse (child pornography) when notified by John Doe #1 and his parents,” the plaintiffs’ legal team wrote.
Sex traffickers posing as a 16-year-old female classmate blackmailed him to share nude content. (Full article.)
This particular lawsuit commenced before Elon Musk bought Twitter, but after Musk bought the platform and allegedly said that “removing child sexual exploitation content from Twitter was his Priority #1,” he proceeded to reduce the number of employees at Twitter monitoring child sex exploitation, according to Forbes.
Twitter Has Cut Its Team That Monitors Child Sexual Abuse
Even as Elon Musk has said that removing child sexual exploitation content from Twitter was “Priority #1,” the teams charged with monitoring for, and subsequently removing such content have been reduced considerably since the tech entrepreneur took control of the social media platform. Bloomberg reported last month that there are now fewer than 10 people whose job it is to track such content – down from 20 at the start of the year.
Even more worrisome is that the Asia-Pacific division has just one full-time employee who is responsible for removing child sexual abuse material from Twitter.
“In this digital era, child sex trafficking and exploitation have become much more widespread and difficult to address. Criminals have become savvier about ways to avoid detection through the Internet. It is much easier to exploit children today than even 20 years ago,” warned Dr. Mellissa Withers, associate clinical professor of preventive medicine and director of the master of public health online program at the University of Southern California.
Multiple studies have found that the majority of teens spend at least four hours a day on electronic devices – and social media sites including Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, could provide the perfect opportunity for a predator to identify potential victims with little risk of being caught. (Source.)
Elon Musk, of course, is a former business associate with Jeffrey Epstein, and was subpoenaed in the Virgin Islands case against Chase Bank and those who helped finance Jeffrey Epstein’s network last year. See:
Other Big Tech billionaires were also subpoenaed in that case, including Sergy Brin and Larry Page, co-founders of Google.
Peter Thiel, who owns much of Rumble, and Reid Hoffman, who founded LinkedIn (now owned by Microsoft), were also associates of Jeffrey Epstein.
There are many sources that report this, including this one published recently about Thiel appearing on the Joe Rogan podcast:
Peter Thiel’s Blood Starts Pumping When Talking About Jeffrey Epstein
There are few people who have attempted to exert their will in America’s political and cultural conversation more than Thiel, and as such, whether he’s charismatic or not, it’s pretty important to hear what he has to say.
Thiel and Rogan grouse about a whole lot of different topics in the three-plus hours that the conversation runs (UFOs, ancient civilizations, and AI are also discussed), but it isn’t until about two hours into this interminable dialogue, that the subject turns to Jeffrey Epstein and related conspiracy theories, that Thiel finally said something interesting.
Indeed, Thiel spent a weird amount of time vamping about former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates and his ties to Epstein.
Thiel, himself, admits to having met with Epstein several times. When asked by Rogan who introduced him, Thiel—who spends an unbelievable amount of the conversation stammering his way through answers— comically delivers an answer as succinct and fact-oriented as a lawyer:
“It was [LinkedIn founder] Reid Hoffman in Silicon Valley introduced us in 2014.”
Bill Gates, of course, is reported as one of the three Billionaires who brought Jeffery Epstein to power, along with Victoria’s Secret founder Leslie Wexner, and Billionaire Donald Trump, in Whitney Webb’s book “One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union Between Intelligence and Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein“. (Source.)
Whitney Webb was on the Jimmy Dore show a few weeks ago, where she reported what the real motives are for these Big Tech Billionaires and their platforms, which is DATA COLLECTION to be able to spy and monitor every person on the planet.
These Big Tech Billionaires are anything but pro-free speech.
All of these Big Tech Billionaires are also either Satanic Jews themselves, or work with them, such as Jeffrey Epstein in the past who was a Jew and worked with Mossad, and are aligned with Zionism and its extreme factions that fund and operate child sex trafficking networks around the world.
One of those Jewish sects is the Chabad Lubavitch cult, whose headquarters are in New York and made the news earlier this year:
Since there is so much speculation being written right now about Telegram founder Pavel Durov, let me publish an excerpt from another Billionaire who has actually met Pavel Durov, and has a different perspective on what is going on with his arrest.
He speculates that Durov may actually be seeking asylum in France, due to his partners’ connections to the Chabad Lubavitch cult.
Pavel Durov, Robert Maxwell, Belle France, and Patriotic Smuggling
How does tech transfer really work? Might some of it be encouraged through espionage?
Fine, I’ll be the one to say it: There’s a direct through line between the wrongful arrest of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell and the righteous detention of Pavel Durov, cofounder of Telegram.
You’re missing the French connection, of course. Ah yes, we are watching the geopolitical return of France. How long I have waited for this moment! How magnificent it is. The reason we love Macron is that he is an American manqué. Hard working, self confident, unapologetically himself.
Which brings me to the talented Mr. Pavel Durov who I once had occasion to meet.
My conclusion? Not the guy but the front. We’re seeing a lot of that these days. These fronts who think they are the main attraction. One could maybe argue that that’s how Silicon Valley has worked since the 2000s.
Shortly after I met Durov I was introduced to Chabad, who I suspected was the real money behind Durov.
Some research from the irrepressible DeAnna Calderón confirmed my suspicions.
Here’s Durov’s business partner, Yitzchak Mirilashvili talking about why he supports Chabad. Yitzchak’s father is Mikhail Mirilashvili, who is in turn business associate of media mogul Vladimir Gusinsky, president of the Russian Jewish Congress, one of the two main national Jewish organizations in Russia, while Mirilashvili is director of the St. Petersburg chapter.
The elder Mirilashvili is deeply involved with organized crime and lives between Israel and St. Petersburg — and helped fund the late Wagner group Yevgeny Prigozhin’s restaurants.
Not to be outdone here’s Durov’s other business partner Lev Leviev who invested in Slack, Spotify, Twitter, Airbnb and Alibaba, and worked closely with Yuri Milner, the Russian-Israeli Facebook investor.
If you squint you can see Durov’s Facebook clone VK and Telegram as outgrowths of the very Likud heavy Facebook and WhatsApp.
WhatsApp cofounder Jan Koum is also a Chabad donor. You might wonder, as I do, about all those Facebook acquisitions and whether they were just a way of paying off the Russians or Chabadniks and whether Zuckerberg had to pretend the metaverse was real lest the regulators realize it was just a way of paying off the Russian investors in Oculus.
We’ve written about Sheryl Sandberg’s and her parents’ connections to foreign intelligence elsewhere and there’s no need to talk more about neoconservatism and Facebook go together like peas and carrots.
I’ve written about Chabad’s relationship with the Russian Federation elsewhere but for our purposes it’s best to say that the relationship is strained. Its days of state sanctioned Judaism have passed.
But if you can have a state-sanctioned Judaism can you have a state-sanctioned anti-Semitism? Of course.
Naturally the Russophilic “antisemites” Andrew Tate & Candace Owens have ties to Pavel Durov and his Chabadnik friends. It’s not a coincidence that Tucker Carlson, who is backed by Rebekah Mercer, interviewed Pavel Durov and Andrew Tate. (Full article.)
So what do you think readers?
Is Pavel Durov truly a “righteous Billionaire” who out of the kindness of his heart wanted to provide the world with a truly “free speech” platform as his main motivation, or is he linked into and funded by child sex trafficking networks just the same as his fellow Big Tech Billionaires?
If Donald Trump is (s)elected as President in November, maybe he can work out a deal with France and bring Durov here to serve in his administration together with Elon Musk, keeping the memory and legacy of Jeffrey Epstein who built our financial system going strong, and finally passing that “antisemitism” bill into law which will make belief in the New Testament and Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, illegal.
Related:
Comment on this article at HealthImpactNews.com.
See Also:
Having problems receiving our emails? See:
If our website is seized and shut down, find us on Telegram, as well as Bitchute and Odysee for further instructions about where to find us.
If you use the TOR Onion browser, here are the links and corresponding URLs to use in the TOR browser to find us on the Dark Web: Health Impact News, Vaccine Impact, Medical Kidnap, Created4Health, CoconutOil.com.
The post Do Big Tech Billionaires Promote “Free Speech” or Child Sex Trafficking? What is “Free Speech”? first appeared on Vaccine Impact.
