Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
May 6, 2019
I’d like to plug my charger into her socket.
The anti-First Amendment activist and juicy little strumpet Tiana Lowe gets into a confused state when attempting to debate issues.
This is the nature of women: they are very good at memorizing and repeating things, but as soon as they are required to apply critical thought, it becomes clear that they literally do not posses the ability to critically process information.
She is currently shilling aggressively against the idea of free speech on the internet, using a bunch of nonsensical libertarian gibberish. Her latest thing is to claim that being pro-First Amendment is communist.
The 1st Amendment applies to public spaces. Knights 1st Amendment Institute v. Trump established that Twitter is only a public space when used by gov’t officials. The law allows social media platforms may block whomever they please according to their own TOS. https://t.co/vHbHExsfEE
— Tiana Lowe (@TianaTheFirst) May 4, 2019
I’d have an easier a time taking these people seriously if they proposed specific solutions. There’s a case to be made that Section 230 protections should put requirements on platforms’ TOS. But most “conservatives” espousing talking points to the left of Liz Warren just haven’t
— Tiana Lowe (@TianaTheFirst) May 4, 2019
Firstly, she is lying.
We have a very clear and very specific proposed solution to the problem of mass censorship on the internet: we want to apply the same “universal service” protections of the Communications Act of 1934 to all de facto monopolies on the internet.
She read my article about this, which we know because she tweeted about it. So she is aware of the argument, and is pretending not to be. Because apparently she thinks that pretending that this is somehow complicated will confuse the people she is trying to convince to get on-board with her anti-First Amendment agenda.
Claiming that thinking free speech should be allowed on the internet is “to the left of Liz Warren” is completely nonsensical, and just an attempt to evoke SOCIALISM as a means to defame those in support of free speech.
Elizabeth Warren is the one who said that White Nationalists should be prosecuted for their beliefs. She is totally on-board with the Tiana Lowe censorship agenda.
We have to recognize the threat of white nationalism. We’ve got to call it out. As President of the United States, my Justice Department would go after white nationalists with full prosecution. #WarrenTownHall
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) March 19, 2019
Is it to the left of Liz Warren to believe that universal phone service is a good thing? Would Tiana argue for abolishing that law, so that PRIVATE COMPANIES would have the ability to deny telephone usage to people with political views that the media disagrees with?
In order to even attempt to pretend she is operating with any form of ideological consistency, she must call for universal phone service to be abolished. Because currently, the internet is a whole lot more important than a home phone line in terms of the ability to communicate freely, and nearly a century ago it was recognized that the ability to communicate using a telephone line was every citizen’s right.
If Tiana Lowe abolished the Communications Act to stop socialism, this would also mean that the telephone companies would be allowed to listen to your conversations so they could pick up on keywords that are politically incorrect and know whose lines to cut.
As far as citing Knight v. Trump – she is doing that because she is stupid. It is not even remotely related to the topic at hand. No one believes that under current law, what Twitter, Facebook, Google, GoDaddy, Cloudflare, et al. are doing is illegal. I’m sure that as a TRVE CONSERVATIVE, Tiana is well aware of the fact that the courts are supposed to interpret the law, not create law.
The fact that denial of service is currently legal is the entire point of the conversation. It is why we are asking for a new ruling from the FCC that classifies stated tech monopolies as common carriers/public utilities.
These arguments are all very simple. There isn’t any room for confusion as to the demands we have or the context of the discussion, so she has to pretend that she is the one who is confused.
And I assume she actually is confused. This is literally a twenty-something female. She doesn’t have interests, ideas or beliefs. She is shilling someone else’s agenda. Someone told her to go out and attack the First Amendment, and claim that true conservatives don’t believe in free speech.
If you’re ever confused about what the true American position on any issue should be, just imagine if Thomas Jefferson were alive right now, and figure out what opinion he would have. This isn’t hard to do, because Thomas Jefferson was a prolific writer. Reading him and applying his thinking to any modern issue is very easy.
But the juicy little strumpet Tiana Lowe hasn’t ever read Thomas Jefferson, and I doubt the people she works for have either. So instead of telling you what the Americanist position on any issue would be, basing it on the ideals of our Founding Fathers and our Constitution, they dazzle you with bullshit.
It is absolutely undeniable that if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would be demanding that the tech companies be regulated by the federal government in order to protect the First Amendment.
Of course, if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, no one would know of his opinions, because he would be banned from social media, and Tiana Lowe would be denouncing him as a neo-Nazi who pollutes the true conservative movement with racism, sexism and homophobia.
It is literally true that the Daily Stormer is the singular media outlet in America promoting the ideals of the Founding Fathers, and it is simply disgusting that these people can claim to be “conservatives” while literally engaging in activism against freedom of speech.
What specifically are they trying to conserve? If we’re ready to throw out the First Amendment based on the premise that it is wrong for the government to protect people’s rights, where exactly do we go from there?
