On Jan. 15, Helga Zepp-LaRouche stood up against internet censorship on the China Radio International (CRI)’s ChinaPlus podcast “World Today.” She was joined on the episode, entitled “Twitter vs Trump: Is Big Tech Too Powerful?” by two other panelists: Mario Cavolo, a Senior Fellow at the Center for China and Globalization and Chen Weihua, the outspoken EU Bureau Chief of China Daily.
Given the first opportunity to speak in response to the moderator’s question whether social media had made the right decision in banning Trump, Zepp-LaRouche responded that this terrible decision is very dangerous, comparable to an earthquake. Maria Zakharova called it a nuclear bomb, Mexican President López Obrador compared it to the Holy Inquisition, and French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire spoke of it as a “digital oligarchy.” This is an incredible attack on free speech, and whether or not you share Trump’s views on various matters, this attack must be opposed!
Following Cavolo’s foolish claim that Trump made the country an uncouth and rude “white trash” nation, Zepp-LaRouche hit back: Although a person may disagree with Trump, this censorship is a coup by Big Tech, which is part of the military-industrial complex in the U.S., which is against Russia and China, and have created color revolutions around the world. They’re creating a precedent of silencing not only the POTUS. They have power beyond anything in history, and if Big Tech is allowed — as part of what is called Deep State or military-industrial complex — to censor anyone they disagree with, this is a dictatorship — Le Maire’s “digital oligarchy” is an understatement and López Obrador’s talk of a Holy Inquisition is much more accurate. Whether or not you like Trump is not so relevant. This should be alarming to the entire world!
The Chinese unfamiliarity with the full concept of free speech came out: Chen insisted that hate speech is not free speech, and that European countries have laws against “hate speech.” The moderator repeated the simplistic idea that the First Amendment does not apply to private companies. (As though telephone monopolies may decline to provide you phone service based on your beliefs, or as if a private restaurant could “speak out” for segregation by allowing only white patrons. There are plenty of laws that apply to private companies!)
Zepp-LaRouche brought up the 9/11 attack, which is still being investigated, and which was used as a pretext to establish laws in the name of national security. Today, the idea of allowing Big Tech to decide what is allowed to be said is partly uncharted territory, but it’s very much like the information control of Goebbels; it is Orwellian.
Asked about proposals to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Zepp-LaRouche broadened the discussion to the general protection of civil rights, requiring an absolutely new approach — including new legislation — to defending people, nations, and business.
On the more general issue of regulating technology, the Schiller Institute’s founder insisted that the world needs a very fundamental discussion as to how nations govern themselves. The American Federalist Papers discussed such long-term factors of government. They speak to matters within a nation, but also amongst nations. We must address principles for the interests of humanity first before discussing how to regulate new technology. New technology will always happen, but the development of the character and the morality must accompany that.
