Apparently Google's chairman does not like any free speech other than his own:
In an op-ed for The New York Times, Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, inserted himself directly into the middle of a heated debate about the line between fighting terrorism’s online reach and internet censorship.
“It’s our responsibility to demonstrate that stability and free expression go hand in hand,” he writes. “We should build tools to help de-escalate tensions on social media - sort of like spell-checkers, but for hate and harassment.”
His words came just after Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, called on Silicon Valley to “disrupt ISIL” last weekend in Washington DC. Clinton said it is crucial to “deprive jihadists of virtual territory” by shutting off their means of communication.
You can read the rest @
And you can find his op-ed piece @
Google and similar entities already have the tools they need to censor what we write on the Internet, and they apparently have been using them whenever they see fit.
CIA, FBI, NSA and similar entities already have the tools they need to find real terrorists, but they apparently either don't know how to or are unwilling to use them to protect us.
What exactly is "hate speech" and who should be allowed to censor it? How does such a concept even fit into the context of the First Amendment to the US Constitution?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And please take note the US Constitution has a provision for suspending the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, but NO SUCH PROVISION for suspending the right of free speech:
Article I, Section 9
2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. [NOTE WELL - for rebellion or invasion, but NOT undeclared war on ISIS or anyone else]
What Mr. Schmidt advocates is suppression of the few by the many, with corporations like Google acting as the thought police. This sort of tyranny was rejected in the early days of our Republic ... so why does he want to bring it back?