Abridging the Freedom of Speech in Social Media
Do social media companies actually have the right to censor speech? The answer may not be what you were expecting.
Much has been said of late about the ability of social media platforms to censor the speech of the users of those platforms. By most legal scholars the right of a corporation to decide what they will or will not allow on their platforms is absolute. “It’s their company, and they have a right to decide what to allow” … is what we are told time and again.
In reality, it’s not as simple as some would have you believe. In fact, there are all sorts of restrictions on companies (corporations) with regard to what they are permitted to do, or say, about their business or their customers.
For example, it used to be an accepted fact that a business has the right to “refuse service to anyone”. However, this is no longer the case. The reason why a person is “refused service” matters in the eyes of the law. You can’t refuse to serve someone due to their race or their sex for example. In some instances, you can’t refuse service to someone based on their sexual partner choices, although this is still an evolving issue.
In other examples, a business can’t deny someone employment, for the same reasons; or housing; or loans.
In all these situations, we affirm that an individual has rights that supersede those of the business or corporation. So why is censorship by a business or corporation any different? Why doesn’t the individual using the social media platform not have a right to be free from censorship or persecution by the corporation for expressing their views?
I would submit that the difference is one of absolute political bias, and not one of law or constitutional right.
There are no situations of record in which the major social media companies have censored a “progressive” of “leftist” user for their speech. In almost every case, censorship always runs in one direction, to the conservative right.
Perhaps some evidence to support the theory that corporations don’t have the right to censor users, despite their claims to the contrary, lies in the fact that they never state the reason for the censorship is due to a differing opinion. They always base the censorship on a falsified, third-party interpretation of analysis that they have designated as “fact-checking”.
The presumption here is that as long as the social media company cites a third party as the arbitrator of truth, then content that is non-truthful would be subject to censorship; and the user could even be punished for telling non-truths. Or so the theory goes. But this theory has not yet been fully tested in the legal system as yet.
To reemphasize the point, these social media companies are not basing their censorship on a straight-up disagreement over the “point of view”, as they ‘theoretically’ would have the grounds to stand, if they truly have the right to refuse service to anyone, “because it’s their business, and they can choose what gets posted.” They should have no fear is stating this outright.
No, they have outsourced their justification, which means they probably don’t actually believe they hold this right and nobody wants to go into court to defend it. For if they lost on those grounds … all bets would be off.
Let’s consider something else.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is pretty clear and interpretations have withstood the test of time. It states,
“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.”
Without question, the courts have ruled this provision applies only to the restriction of the government’s powers and right, not the people. Lest we forget, the Constitution only ‘sanctifies’ the right of Man that were granted by God. In other words, our individual rights are not granted by the Constitution they are granted by God. The constitution states that the Government can’t take those rights from you.
So let’s break out the section where “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…”
In essence, the Freedom of Speech comes from God and this document emphatically states that Congress shall not interfere with that. Pretty simple, and universally accepted.
So what does this have to do with a Corporation? Don’t they have freedom of speech as well?
Well …. It’s been interpreted by courts that Corporations have free speech. But is this really correct?
God didn’t invent Corporations. God invented Man and Man invented Corporations. Thus, God didn’t give corporations rights, Man did. Specifically, Man created laws, through Congress that established the rules in which a Corporation MUST operate. Despite what Mitt Romney thinks, Corporations are not people. They are non-living paper entities that exist to deal with legal and tax implications. They are a creation of the Government.
See where this is going?
The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” But by creating the rules in which an entity known as a “corporation” is developed and then allowing that entity to “abridge” free speech, Congress has itself done exactly what the Constitution has forbidden. Congress has in effect outsourced censorship.
What can we do about this?
Two things have to be done in order for the people to retake their constitutional rights.
The first is that Congress must finally recognize, and create legislation, that specifically acknowledges that Corporations are NOT people. That corporations are not living organisms created by God and therefore do not have the same rights and privileges as People. This will go a long way to righting many of the wrongs that corporations have inflicted upon the citizens of the world.
The second is that Congress must create legislation that states that the limited powers of the government are also restricted to corporations in the same manner as that of the Government, for the corporation is an offspring of the government. Meaning, that a corporation can not violate any provision of the U.S. Constitution with regard to the rights of the individual. This includes the right to Free Speech … among others.
If the People of the United States can force through these very simple pieces of legislation, the rights of the People could once again be secured… and our democracy will be able to put this horrible period of history behind us.
Featured
Pritzker Signs HB 1312 — A Radical State Law That Clashes with Federal Authority and Endangers Federal Officers
Illinois – On December 9, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed House Bill 1312 into law. It is a measure that dramatically expands state-level protections for illegal immigrants and curtails federal immigration enforcement inside Illinois. At its core, the law aims to sharply restrict federal immigration agents’ ability to conduct civil arrests at courthouses, hospitals, colleges, day-care centers, and other “sensitive locations”, and grants powerful new civil remedies against federal officers, namely ICE. Supporters call it a shield; critics see it as direct defiance of the Constitution and a reckless amplification of radical sanctuary policy.
From Courthouses to Child Care: What HB 1312 Actually Does
HB 1312’s provisions cover a broad range of public and private institutions: it prohibits civil immigration arrests within 1,000 feet of Illinois courthouses, when people are attending judicial proceedings; it compels hospitals, universities, and day-care centers to adopt new policies governing interactions with law enforcement; and it imposes restrictions on sharing immigration status information with federal agents, except as required by law. Most parts of the law take effect immediately, while others, like hospital policies, phase in through early 2026.
One of the most controversial components is the creation of an “Illinois Bivens Act,” which authorizes anyone in the state to bring civil lawsuits against law enforcement officers whom they believe violated their constitutional rights during immigration enforcement actions. Those suits could yield statutory damages up to $10,000 for someone falsely arrested while trying to attend a court proceeding, and increases the award if an officer is masked or lacks clear identification.
Hospitals will be required to implement detailed procedures for dealing with immigration agents, and information about a patient’s immigration status may be shielded under new privacy rules. Public universities, meanwhile, must adopt protocols for federal law enforcement access. Day-care operators are obligated to post “know your rights” language, develop action plans, and restrict documentation disclosure to immigration authorities.
Governor Pritzker and lawmakers painted the legislation as necessary to protect immigrant communities from aggressive federal action, particularly Operation Midway Blitz — a series of enhanced civil immigration enforcement operations that netted thousands of arrests in the Chicago area this year. “Dropping your kid off at day care, going to the doctor, or attending your classes should not be a life-altering task,” Pritzker said at the signing ceremony.
Federal Supremacy?
Even before the ink dried, senior federal officials publicly condemned HB 1312 as unconstitutional.
The Department of Homeland Security argued that the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause clearly establishes that federal law over state law on matters like immigration enforcement, and that no state can block federal officers from performing their duties. “By signing this law, Pritzker violated the Supremacy Clause… and his oath… to support the Constitution of the United States,” DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.
Pritzker’s own critics within Illinois, including state Republicans, warned that the legislation invites costly legal challenges and potentially endangers federal agents by forcing them into operational conflicts with state law. Those concerns are rooted in basic constitutional principles: immigration enforcement is explicitly a federal responsibility, and when state statutes impede federal agents carrying out federal law, conflict is inevitable.
Federal Supremacy in Immigration Enforcement
The U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) states that federal laws are “the supreme Law of the Land,” and judges in multiple cases have reaffirmed that states cannot independently obstruct federal enforcement decisions. The Supreme Court has long held that immigration enforcement and removal procedures fall squarely within the federal government’s authority. While states may set policies on local cooperation with federal agencies, they generally may not preclude federal officers from executing their duties or create statutory schemes that have that effect.
HB 1312, by design, limits where federal agents can make civil arrests and imposes penalties and procedures that conflict with federal enforcement objectives. This raises serious Supremacy Clause concerns and makes the prospect of a successful legal challenge likely. The law’s expansive civil liability provisions could be similarly vulnerable, as federal courts have repeatedly affirmed qualified immunity for federal officers performing their official duties. In past cases, federal immigration enforcement suits have been dismissed on grounds of sovereign immunity or preemption. (For example, in Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), the Supreme Court struck down Arizona provisions that intruded upon federal immigration enforcement authority.) HB 1312 appears poised to meet the same fate.
Radicalization or Reasoned Policy?
Supporters of HB 1312 frame the law as a compassionate response to what they call “cruel federal tactics.” Yet by embedding sanctuary-style protections in statewide policy, Illinois effectively escalates a growing nationwide trend of sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
Moreover, empowering private citizens to sue federal officers, especially with monetary awards, could chill lawful federal enforcement and pressure agents to avoid even legally sanctioned actions out of fear of litigation. This dynamic, far from strengthening public safety, may inadvertently undermine cooperative relationships between federal and local authorities and endanger federal officers who pursue legal mandates under U.S. law.
Looking Ahead: The Fight Moves to the Courts
Republicans, constitutional scholars, and federal officials alike predict that HB 1312 will face swift judicial review, likely at the federal appellate level and, ultimately, before the Supreme Court. Given the clear constitutional principles at stake and the precedents that reinforce federal primacy in immigration matters, courts are positioned to strike down major portions of the law as unconstitutional.
In signing HB 1312, Governor Pritzker has elevated a partisan policy battle into a constitutional clash with potentially far-reaching consequences, not only for Illinois but for the balance of power between states and the federal government.
Analysis / Opinion – In a scene that echoes the comical greed of Richard Pryor’s character in Superman III, American retailers are quietly positioning themselves to benefit from the rounding of your change. Not by stealing half-cents into a secret bank account, but by tweaking prices so that, when the cash register closes, the rounding always favors them. With the penny officially retired, their little profits are set to add up fast.
Yes, the coin that has jingled in your couch cushions for generations is gone. On November 12, 2025, the United States Mint struck the final circulating penny, ending a 232-year run. The move, ordered by the Brandon Beach-led Treasury, was justified by rising production costs. It costs 3.69 cents to mint a one-cent coin that is worth only a cent, and has dwindling practical use.
That penny may be gone, but rounding rules remain. Pennies are still legal tender, but with no more being minted, their circulation will shrink. Many economists and officials expect cash transactions to be rounded to the nearest nickel when pennies disappear from everyday use.
For retailers, that isn’t a bug. It’s an opportunity.
How Pricing Will Tilt the Rounding to Retailers’ Favor
With pennies gone, the rounding of cash totals becomes inevitable. But the outcome, whether customers lose change or not, depends on how retailers price items. And with modern tools, they can tilt it heavily in their favor.
Using local tax rates (for example, a hypothetical 8.25 %) and simple rounding rules, pricing strategists, now aided by artificial intelligence, can adjust individual item prices down to the cent so that, after tax and rounding, the final cash-register total ends in .03 or .08 (or at worst .04 or .09). Under standard rounding to the nearest nickel, those endings give retailers a gain of one or two cents. Over thousands or millions of transactions, those cents become real money.
For instance:
- A product at $1.92 before tax ends up as $2.08 total — rounding up to $2.10, giving the retailer 2 extra cents while the customer sees a lower sticker price.
- A $9.96 item produces a post-tax total that rounds up, unlike $9.99, which might round down.
- A clean $20 price tag may shift to $19.98 — a small tweak that creates a favorable rounding outcome.
Retailers who price each item carefully — rather than basing price on “market norms” like .99 or .95 — can systematically harvest these rounding gains. It’s the arithmetic equivalent of payroll for pennies, just like how Gus Gorman was shocked to discover his fortune in Superman III.
Who Gains — And Who Loses
This pricing strategy is most lucrative in contexts with frequent low-item cash purchases: convenience stores, gas stations, coffee shops, small retail outlets. In those environments, the rounding on each sale matters. Large grocery carts or mixed baskets tend to average out, though retailers still benefit overall from any skew.
Digital payments — credit cards, mobile wallets, and contactless transactions are unaffected. Totals still settle to the exact cent. So the benefit accrues only when the customer pays with cash. But given how many transactions in the U.S. still involve cash, especially among lower- and middle-income shoppers, the strategy still has broad potential.
Legally, there’s nothing wrong with the approach. The government stopped making pennies because it cost more to produce them than their face value. They left the rounding rules to states and businesses. Still, some retailers and industry groups worry about the fairness of the shift. As reported, many businesses were caught off guard when penny shipments abruptly stopped, with no central guidance on rounding policies.
That means even well-meaning merchants might adopt rounding-up strategies by default, simply because that’s what the pricing tools they buy suggest.
The Penny’s End — And the Subtle Rise of the Rounding Dividend
Yes, the penny is gone. Production stopped. The smallest unit of U.S. currency no longer emerges from Mint presses. The rounding rules may seem harmless, perhaps even trivial. But with the precision of modern pricing analytics and the institutional muscle of retail chains, that triviality becomes systematic.
What the consumer loses is too small to notice. A penny here, two cents there. But over time, it accumulates. Much like the fictional windfall of Gus Gorman, the rounding profits will build quietly until they become significant, collected not by thieves in a basement, but by retailers behind bright fluorescent lights and bar-code scanners.
The penny’s death may be an act of fiscal efficiency. But the rounding dividend is the beginning of a price-structure redesign that advantages those who control the register.
Featured
Six Democratic Lawmakers’ Sparks Accusations of Seditious Conspiracy — Trump Amplifies with Death Threat Rhetoric
Opinion
Washington, DC – Six Democratic members of Congress — Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, and Representatives Jason Crow, Chrissy Houlahan, Maggie Goodlander, and Chris Deluzio — released a video urging U.S. military and intelligence personnel to “refuse illegal orders.”
Their coordinated appeal, denouncing what they claim are law-breaking commands from the Trump administration, has been met by President Trump with a predictable, incendiary response:
Trump labeled their behavior “seditious … punishable by DEATH!” and even reposted a meme calling for their hanging. The rhetoric now raises real concerns of stochastic terrorism and even seditious conspiracy, threatening fundamental norms of civilian-military relations.
The Lawmakers’ Message
On Nov. 18, 2025, the six lawmakers, all with military or intelligence backgrounds, published a 90-second video emphasizing their shared oath to defend the Constitution. They warned that “the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home,” and insisted, “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders … You must refuse illegal orders.” [1] [2]
Several of these members have long argued that Trump’s actions have violated the law. Representative Jason Crow, for instance, introduced a War Powers resolution on Nov. 18 to block what he characterized as “unauthorized & illegal military strikes” in the Western Hemisphere. [3] Others likewise claim that funding cuts and executive actions under Trump have flouted legal constraints.
The Legal Risk: From Free Speech to Conspiracy
Under U.S. military law, service members are required to obey lawful orders, per UCMJ Article 92, but they are also obliged to refuse “manifestly unlawful” orders — including those that “are contrary to the Constitution or the laws of the United States.”
Legal scholars argue that, by calling generically for disobedience without naming specific orders, the lawmakers’ video straddles a dangerous boundary. When repeated broadly, such messages may constitute stochastic terrorism: individually protected, but cumulatively creating a signal that could encourage disobedience or rebellion.
Taken as a coordinated effort, their plea may even raise issues under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, the federal statute for seditious conspiracy, which prohibits conspiracies “to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the United States.” Though the lawmakers have not openly advocated violence, urging troops to choose which orders to follow can fragment the chain of command, damaging the principle of civilian control.
Trump’s Violent Retaliation
President Trump responded forcefully, and some might say, predictably. On his platform, Truth Social, he denounced the six Democrats as “traitors” and called for their arrest and trial. He wrote, “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” according to multiple reports. [4], [2]
But he didn’t stop there: he also reposted a supporter’s comment that read, “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”, amplifying calls for political violence. [5], [6]
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer condemned the remarks as “an outright threat … calling for the execution of elected officials.” [6]
The White House later claimed Trump did not literally want to see them executed, but critics argue that the amplification of hanging rhetoric — even indirectly — normalizes political violence. [7] Of course, those same critics say nothing of the incendiary words of the Congressmen.
Constitutional Stakes and Conservative Warning
From a constitutional-conservative perspective, the moment demands serious reflection. The six lawmakers’ message could stem from genuine concern for the rule of law, but it strains credibility that this was their actual intent. By broadly urging military personnel to disobey without specifying which orders are supposedly illegal, they are deliberately trying to erode discipline and undermine civilian control of the armed forces — fundamentals that protect our Republic.
On the other hand, Trump’s response is also deeply disturbing. When the commander-in-chief publicly suggests that lawmakers be arrested and even killed, he flirts with incitement and death-threat rhetoric. Even if his words fall short of criminal action, the tone sets a dangerous precedent: political disagreement being met with calls for violent retribution.
Bottom Line
What this episode truly reveals is yet another escalation from the left — the same kind of escalation that helped create the environment that led to the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Their coordinated “refuse orders” campaign demonstrates that many on the left genuinely believe they are in an active war with the right, and they now behave accordingly. They instigate, they inflame, and they knowingly unleash rhetoric designed to agitate the most unstable individuals among their base, allowing a deranged actor to carry out the violence they privately hope for while they publicly feign innocence.
The proper course of action, in this author’s view, is for Trump to stop joking about the situation, stop posting memes about it, and instead act: these members of Congress should be taken into custody, charged with seditious conspiracy, and tried under the law.
The left has already decided they’re at war — it’s time the right acknowledge that reality and respond with the seriousness the moment demands.
References
- [1] The Guardian, “Outrage after Trump accuses Democrats of ‘seditious behavior, punishable by death’”
- [2] NBC Chicago (AP), “Trump says Democrats’ video message to military is ‘seditious behavior’ punishable by death”
- [3] Office of Rep. Jason Crow, “Crow Leads Resolution to Block Illegal U.S. Military Strikes”
- [4] CBS News, “Trump condemned by Democrats after he accuses 6 lawmakers of ‘seditious behavior’”
- [5] TIME, “Trump Calls for Arrests of Democrats Who Urged Troops to Refuse Illegal Orders: ‘Seditious Behavior, Punishable by Death’”
- [6] Fox News, “Schumer accuses Trump of calling for ‘the execution of elected officials’”
- [7] The Guardian, “White House walks back Trump’s suggestion of executing Democrats, stands by…”
You must be logged in to post a comment Login