By Joe Bartozzi, NSSF
In recent years, Big Tech has expanded its control over public discourse with platforms like YouTube and Meta (the parent company of Facebook and Instagram), imposing draconian restrictions on firearm-related content. This isn’t just about policy – it’s a blatant affront to our First and Second Amendment rights. A glaring example is McKenna Geer, a Paralympic shooter poised to represent Team USA in Paris.
McKenna’s story is inspirational. Born with congenital amyoplasia arthrogryposis, she has overcome enormous obstacles to compete at the highest levels in shooting sports.
Silencing Competitors
Photo courtesy of Team USA
However, instead of celebrating these triumphs, Meta chose to shadow-ban her for simply sharing sports-related content. Earlier this month, McKenna posted a photo on Instagram of the air rifle she uses to qualify for the Paralympic Games. Meta flagged the photo as violating their guidelines, placing her on a censorship list.
This shadow-banning is not some small speed bump on the road to stardom; it is a deliberate attempt to silence her voice, an attack against her and her sport. She is not just any other athlete. She is a Paralympian who won a bronze medal in the 2016 Rio de Janeiro games. A Big Tech giant that cares more about promoting its antigun agenda than embracing an extraordinary athlete will not permit McKenna to share her journey, engage her fans and attract much-needed sponsors.
A recent Wall Street Journal op-ed from Tim Rupli of USA Shooting explained McKenna’s frustrating social media woes. He cited the CEO of USA Shooting, Kelly Reisdorf, who said: “By silencing an athlete’s voice, you infringe not only on their freedom of expression but subtly on their right to bear arms as well, as these platforms are critical for educating and sharing the legitimate and safe use of firearms in sport.”
McKenna is not alone in facing such censorship. Recently, Meta has also taken similar actions against other athletes, such as Team USA shotgun athlete Conner Prince. The Facebook page of the West Point Rifle Team at the U.S. Military Academy was “unpublished” by Meta, which stated that the page “goes against our Community Standards.”
Muzzling YouTube Content
Take the case of Hickok45, a popular YouTube channel that provides informative, safety-oriented content on firearms. Notwithstanding its popularity, Hickok45 has suffered under repeated censorship by YouTube. In 2016 and 2018, the channel was suspended on the grounds of violations against firearm content policies. These policies expressly prohibit content for the sale of firearms and accessories, instructions on manufacturing firearms and ammunition or installing firearm accessories. Yet, they were stretched to the point of absurdity in order to deplatform this channel.
The latest incident saw all videos posted starting from June 18, along with much of their older content, deleted by YouTube.
The censorship of McKenna Geer, Hickok45, Conner Prince and the West Point Rifle Team are part of a disturbing pattern. Meta, Google and other Big Tech firms have an outsized role in public discourse but actively choose to exclude content from that discourse that pertains to our Second Amendment. This is not about guideline enforcement but narrative control and infringements on our fundamental rights.
We can protect our rights and ensure a balanced and transparent online community. We simply start by standing up and speaking out against ideological, anti-Second Amendment censorship.
Are you for freedom or not? What you are argyfor is straight out of the Left’s playbook. A for profit business has a policy that you don’t like. Well boo-boo. Go to a competitor.
Defacto public square, crooked digital publishing regs, all kinds of monopolistic issues involved, and generally fuck off for being disingenuous.
In addition to SAFEupstate’s comment on the defacto public square, we have a proven history of government aiding, abetting, requesting, and even ordering censorship on these platforms. If we can find a government official who has input into the censorship, then we can take everyone involved to court. Take them to court, and WIN!
With a name like “Gay Cakes”, you’re probably thrilled with bit tech’s censorship policies. They push your gay agenda pretty damned hard, don’t they?
Yeah let’s just entirely ignore the concept of section 230.
Think about all the other loophole whataboutism that actually erodes people’s rights. This absolutely, CLEARLY isn’t a private bakery situation and just saying “private business” is just flat out ignoring the regulatory implications of this.
Let me ask you, if the best place to exercise speech in a meaningful way was online, but literally every website that was predominatly able to cast wide publically was just entirely censoring a specific group of people, all while enjoying govt protections as a platform, would that be ok?
RE: “We can protect our rights and ensure a balanced and transparent online community. We simply start by standing up and speaking out against ideological, anti-Second Amendment censorship.”
Unfortunately there are those obviously without sin on this forum whose idea of Protecting Rights is to broad brush a race with “Usual Suspects.” Then there are those who bark at Defining Gun Control by its History for a Gun Control History illiterate America. And lately there are those who wish to cancel Jennifer’s Free Speech. Bottom line…Gun Control zealots couldn’t ask for better help.
Freedom IS a two-way street, of course. And private entities are NOT required to abide the Bill of Rights. We all know that the BoR applies to restrict the gov’t from infringing our Rights.
HOWEVER… when a private entity acts on the DIRECTION of the gov’t, it becomes an agent of the gov’t. Now the BoR DOES apply. Both big tech AND the current administration openly admitted to collaborating on censorship. So, yeah… now it’s a 1A issue.
Imagine if AT&T or Verizon began to censor text messages or even voice conversations on the direction of the gov’t. Mind you, they are also considered public utilities, so they can’t censor even WITHOUT the gov’t telling them to do so.
One might (and some have) argue that Facebook, X, and the like are effectively public utilities at this point. But even without that argument, once the gov’t tells Facebook which “misinformation” to censor, FB becomes a gov’t agent. 1A applies.
Notice positive portrayals are what get censored while criminal use vids proliferate throughout social media.
Almost as if there’s an intentional effort to make people think about guns in an entirely negative way. I seen to recall Eric Holder taking about doing this very thing.
Exactly! It is entirely an intentional effort to make people think about guns in an entirely negative way. Examples:
News of a mass shooting? Facebook says go ahead, post that far and wide, share, and repost!
News of a US Olympic or Paralympic athlete’s success at her sport? Banned by Facebook.
News of the US Military Academy at West Point and their rifle team? Banned by Facebook.
LEAKED SECRET SERVICE EMAIL Predicts Another Attempt On Trump!
MINNESOTA TRIES TO RUN FROM SCOTUS IN HUGE 2A FIGHT.
Minnesota files a request for en banc review by the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses MN’s strategy in the Worth v. Jacobson case involving 18-20 year olds carrying handguns in public for self defense.
OK, so, what can WE DO? Is there some channel to Youtube where we can complain, for instance? Or, does it all rely on someone suing Youtube, then waiting for years for it to work it’s way through the court system? How can we lodge a complaint against Facebook for censorship? There must be some method for grass roots efforts to reach the decision makers. Sadly, I don’t know what that method might be.
Guess WordPress is happy to abrogate my speech as well. Clearly they hate it when we pick on their Democrat buddies.