Free speech: Is Congress the only entity not allowed to abridge it?

“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.

*****

Is our understanding of the first amendment all wrong? Do we mistakenly believe that “free speech” applies to every facet of life, both in the private as well as the public sector?

In the current environment of massive corporate censorship, it isn’t Congress that made a “…law…abridging the freedom of speech…”  It has been private corporations:  Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Google, and many, many others that have taken it upon themselves to censor us.

So, I guess the question becomes “at what point do private entities act in a manner similar to that of the Federal Government – Congress – in their role of abridging the freedom of speech” to the point where they violate the spirit or intent of the Constitution?

Here are several scenarios:

• If an employee badmouths his employer and is fired for it, does his firing violate his “freedom of speech?”
• If a police officer gives his opinion on Facebook that he believes the black community is being excessively coddled by the Department to avoid being accused of racism, does his firing violate his “freedom of  speech?”
• If you warn others about the evils of Islamic Sharia or tendencies toward violent jihad, and you are thrown off social media because you offended someone, did this violate your “freedom of speech?”
• If your Trump Club in The Villages, Florida, planned to host the movie  “Trump Card” by Dinesh D'Souza, but it was shut down by the local government because some people claimed they would be offended, does that violate your “freedom of speech?”
• If a conservative participates in a rally where a small segment of the group trespasses on public property and he is fired for that, does his firing violate his “freedom of speech?”
• If I have publicly supported the President who is justly or unjustly accused of inciting violence and I am banned from Twitter because of that support, does my being banned violate my “freedom of speech?”

My point:  Just as many have misconstrued the idea of “separation of church and state” (no, it does NOT mean that Christians should be prohibited from influencing government), many have also misconstrued the scope of the First Amendment. The First Amendment primarily applies to the role of Congress, not to corporations or individual citizens.  You can tell me to shut the hell up and my “constitutional rights” are not being violated.

Businesses and corporations have been telling their employees and customers where to go, so to speak, since the founding of our nation. Is this always right and fair? No. Does it violate my personal “freedom of speech? Yes.  But does it violate the provision of the First Amendment?  In most cases, no.

But, we are in the midst of a new era where Big Tech and Social Media are acting in a manner similar to that as if Congress, our government, were imposing speech restrictions – censorship – on its citizens. The consequences are equally pervasive and dire. Speech is quelled.

I suspect the matter will come down to comparing Social Media to public utilities.  These corporate Big Tech, social media entities will ultimately be regulated by the Federal Government just as the communications companies, phones, radio, TV have been. But will “freedom of speech” be respected when the government has a hand in regulating it?

There is a point where corporations become so large and all pervasive in their role in providing services to the general public that it makes common sense for them to be subject to the same restrictions of Congress with regard to the force, effect, and intent of the First Amendment.

In this period of political turmoil many of us will be forced to quickly adapt to new social media venues. A question I have asked:  Why have only liberal entities created these large social media platforms? Why are conservatives so late to the game?  Are only globalist corporations who get large handouts from China able to afford and implement this technology?  I don’t really have an answer.

And the community “powers that be” who ban the showing of a movie because some disagree with it deserves to lose any suit brought against it.

Below is a link to an interview of a Parler official with Glenn Beck – good stuff…

https://rumble.com/vcnzhz-parler-exec-speaks-out-against-unfair-big-tech-throttle.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Glenn+Beck&ep=1