Censorship is Free Speech?
Wed 2:30 pm +00:00, 1 Jul 2026
Source: https://mileswmathis.com/censor2.pdf
June 29, 2026
It’s just Newspeak, isn’t it? War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Censorship is
Free Speech.
Doubleplusungood.
Nothing could be clearer evidence of how corrupt and Orwellian the world has become than this
argument at calawyers.org that censorship is protected free speech. The argument from these
“attorneys” is that Google and other search engines are private companies acting as media enterprises,
therefore the free speech and free press clauses of the Constitution can be read as protecting their right
to be as biassed in their listings as they like, since the Constitution has no guarantee of fairness and
these entities “have not waived their right to selectively list however they like”.
No, they actually say that. They want you to believe that search results are “editorial judgment”, like
you would see on an editorial page in a newspaper. They keep saying that a search engine is an
“internet speaker”, to tie it to free speech, but a search engine is not an internet speaker. It is a search
engine, which everyone knows is not a person or a speaker or a newspaper that has Constitutional
rights to lie, distort, and censor.
As search engines, these entities are NOT acting like the press or media, they are acting as official
government gatekeepers and arms of the federal government. Google has been a government front
from the start, funded in the dark by various CIA and military backchannels, like everything else.
Remember, Google came out of Mountain View, spawned by military via Shockley and Fairchild. But
they have always wanted you to think these big companies were private, founded by college kids out of
their basements, just so that they could later dodge these censorship charges. They then hire these
corrupt attorneys to come up with these oily arguments, where quashing freedom of speech is
protected by the free speech clause of the Constitution. A topsy-turvy world.
They say,
The government may not tell the Hufngton Post or the Drudge Report how to rank the news stories
or opinion artcles to which they link. Likewise, it may not do so for other speakers, such as search
engines.
An obvious dodge, since a search engine is not a media outlet or speaker. It is a different entity
altogether and everyone knows that. These attorneys want you to think the government cannot tell
Google what to do, but who do you think is telling Google to censor people like me? The government!
And not just Google of course. Facebook/Meta/Zuckerberg have now admitted the government was
ordering it to censor wide swaths of information, which was always a given since Facebook is a
government front, funded by DARPA and similar entities. The mainstream, including places like
Wikipedia, now admit that. The same goes for Google, Twitter, Yahoo, Bing, Youtube, and I assume
all other major outlets. X admitted it after Covid, remember? That is what the whole Musk brouhaha
was about, where he allegedly fired all the government moles censoring the site. So we now know the
government is ordering not just search engines but media outlets as well. Which means the “argument”
of these fake attorneys just exploded in their faces. No matter what either side in some court case has
argued, or what the courts have allegedly found, the government IS controlling both the search engines
and the media, and has been doing it for decades or centuries. It is also controlling the courts, which
just makes the joke bigger here. The only difference is that it has completely come out in the open in
the past few years, everything going transparent. Which makes it all the more icky to see these
attorneys saying this. They have clearly been ordered to try to justify this tyranny after the fact, by
treating their audience as a bunch of retarded children, but that is just throwing gasoline on the fire. No
one capable of reading the English language will read this and be fooled into thinking censorship is
protected speech.
It would be like the tobacco companies trying to hide behind the free speech clause, claiming that when
they said smoking didn’t cause cancer, they were exercising their right to report certain experiments run
by their corrupt in-house scientists and ignore all others; and besides they never waived their right
report whatever they liked however they liked.
It would be like Pfizer or Fauci trying to hide behind the free speech clause, when they told you the
vaccines were safe and effective, and that they prevented infection. According to this current
argument, because Pfizer is a private company, it can say whatever it wants, since there is no
Constitutional guarantee of truth or accuracy, and it has has not waived its right to advertise in
whatever way it see fit to do so.
But just any sane person knows there is a universal expectation that Pfizer and Fauci and Philip Morris
not lie, there is a universal expectation that search engines will run unbiassed searches, not that they tell
you only what they want you to hear, hiding everything else. Which is why for many years they did.
Or better than now, at any rate. That is because people do not think of search engines like they think of
the National Enquirer. Because the ties to government are known, people do expect fairness, accuracy,
oversight, and a strict avoidance of censorship.
That is why the first iteration of search engines was based on real numbers: visits, hits, keywords, and
so on. And that is why the search engines are generally hiding the fact they have moved on to a second
iteration based on censorship, suppression, and propaganda. If this is all above board and
Constitutional, then why are the search engines and the government and the oily lying attorneys hiding
the switch? Why not lead all searches with the proud claim they have completely updated the method,
boosting all government approved information and deleting the rest for your own good? We all know
why: that would be admitting that 1984 is here. That would be admitting we now have a Chinese-style
internet, or worse. Say it with me: CHI-NAH.
And why do they call that a Chinese-style internet? Because the internet in China has long been run by
the state, jettisoning all non-approved content and opinion. The difference being that China has no
Constitution, no free speech guarantees, and no pretense otherwise. People over there are aware
everything they read and see is state propaganda. But here, where our rulers want the same thing, they
had to do an end-run around the Constitution and the First Amendment, turning it on its head to protect
the huge government fronts like Google doing the censorship. The Constitution was written to protect
the powerless from the powerful, the little guy from the King and other big guys, but that has been
flipped: it is now quoted by these weaselly lawyers to protect the government and huge corporations
from truly private individuals like me. It is being used to protect liars from the truth. It is being used to
protect scientists who can’t do science from scientists who can do science. It is being used to protect
artists who can’t create art from those who can. It is being used to protect writers who can’t write and
poets who can’t write against those who can. It is being use to protect debaters who can’t debate
(except by lying) from debaters who can debate.
Then they say,
The “point” of the rule that speakers may choose what to include and what to exclude “is simply the point of all speech protecton, which is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtul.” Hurley, 515 U.S. at 574.
Yes, but that applies to the speech of individuals, not to search engines or huge companies working as
government fronts. Government sponsored censorship is not just “hurtful speech”, it is a thing in itself,
an entirely separate category, so this “argument” is a logical fallacy. Censorship, by definition, a
priori and prima facie, is NOT free speech. If what Google is doing were redefined as free speech,
then censorship would be wiped from the dictionary and cease to exist. Censorship is the act of
purposely silencing individuals or groups, and it is not protected as free speech by the Constitution or
any other laws. Just the opposite, it is proscribed by the First Amendment, which expressly prohibits
censorship. The Constitution is very compact, so you have to read intent, but the clear intent is to
prohibit the government from quashing critics, either directly or through the media. It says Congress
cannot pass laws to do this, but that clearly doesn’t mean Congress or any other part of government
may dodge this prohibition by working through faux-private companies to do it. There is absolutely no
room for debate on that question, and anyone who argues that is just a paid liar.
And now for the punchline: at the bottom we find this:
Notes:
1. This artcle grew out of a white paper commissioned by Google, but the views within it should not
necessarily be ascribed to Google. This artcle appeared originally in the Fall 2013 issue of Icarus, the journal of the Media and Technology Commitee of the ABA’s Anttrust Secton.
Again, you have to laugh. Google paid for it, but that doesn’t mean Google paid for it. These hired
attorneys just accidentally argue Google is innocent of censorship. So lucky of Google to hire
attorneys who agreed with it!
So have any real courts actually agreed with this finding, as these attorneys imply? What honest judge
or jury could agree with it? The answer must be no, so if any court has agreed with it, that court must
either be a fake CIA court, or the judge was bought off by the government. I don’t see any third
possibility there, so they can take their pick.
