Big brother Facebook releases new ad restrictions and plans to add 3,000 content reviewers to the “hate speech” fight

Considering the fact that the liberals who reside in Washington D.C. are on a never ending quest for power, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the liberals who run Facebook are power hungry as well. Yet again, the social media giant has implemented new rules and standards as part of their effort to combat the spread of “hate speech,” which more and more each day looks like nothing more than a code for “conservative news.”

This time, however, instead of censoring conservative viewpoints outright, Facebook is tightening the rules and restrictions regarding who can make money from advertising on its network. The social media site has explained that content that includes “family entertainment characters engaged in violent, sexualized, or otherwise inappropriate behavior” would be ineligible to make money off of advertising. In addition, Facebook’s guidelines prohibit content that is incendiary, inflammatory, demeaning, or disparaging towards others. If this system is abused — which it no doubt will be — then conservatives who run websites, blogs or businesses are in a lot of trouble. (Related: Facebook censors Natural News from users who want it, but won’t allow you to block Mark Zuckerberg’s feed.)

The new advertising standards are only the latest in Facebook’s ongoing push to censor content that doesn’t conform with the progressive agenda. In fact, last year, Fox News put together an entire list of times when Facebook trampled upon the free speech rights of their conservative users. The list told the stories of people like Lauren Southern, a conservative activist and supporter of Donald Trump who was banned from Facebook for 30 days for simply expressing outrage over her friend’s account being censored.

Other examples of Facebook censorship compiled by Fox News included a kid whose account was locked after he posted a video of Rudy Giuliani criticizing Barack Obama, the removal of a photoshopped picture posted by a conservative page depicting Obama wearing Che Guevara gloves, and the removal of a patriotic photo honoring fallen Marines.

Given the new standards regarding advertising on Facebook, and given the countless examples of conservatives being directly censored, it is safe to assume that Mark Zuckerberg and his team are addicted to power. In many ways, they are like a schoolyard bully that picks on smaller students to boost his inflated ego. And as everybody knows, the only real way to deal with a bully is to deliver a quick punch to the nose, followed by a stern warning to knock it off.

Quite frankly, the time for conservatives and free speech advocates to take a stand against Facebook is long overdue. In an ideal world, Facebook would just do an Internet search for the United States Constitution (assuming that Google hasn’t censored that yet) and remind themselves of what the First Amendment actually says. Then they would realize that they had overstepped their boundaries and back off. Sadly, that doesn’t look like it is going to happen. Facebook either doesn’t understand the meaning of free speech, or worse, they understand it but simply do not care. (Related: If Google and Facebook are not regulated, their politically-motivated censorship will drive America to open warfare in the streets.)

That is exactly the reason why conservatives should call on congress to debate and eventually pass legislation that limits the amount of power Facebook has to censor right wing voices. Frankly, this should be something that receives bipartisan support. Once liberty begins to erode and tyranny starts to fill its place, everybody suffers, regardless of political positions and ideological viewpoints.

As Ben Franklin once said, “Freedom of speech is a principle pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected in its ruins. Republics… derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.”

Sources include:

DailyMail.co.uk

FoxNews.com

HistoryGuy.com