EndTime Issues ...

[for updated PDF and printing, click here]

Welcome to EndTime Issues…

The Bible predicts that near the end coercive religious mandates will limit the freedom of God’s loyalists. Global, legal, and cultural changes suggest religious tyranny is approaching. In spite of this, the gospel message will reach every individual.

________________________________________________________

Manipulating Your

Thoughts and Decisions

Introduction

Before radio, television, and the internet, there was limited public debate on freedom of expression because of limited popular access. When the internet made its debut, user-generated content, without editorial control, entered the public domain.

• An exponential rise in global discourse followed.
• This was soon followed by an increase in disinformation campaigns, hate speech, slander, lies, and conspiracy theories. The discovery of truth and honesty grew more complicated.

Algorithms to moderate speech were developed. This power began to shatter democratic principles and frequently sought to inappropriately influence individual opinions. Recent deleting of freely expressed ideas from internet media sites has further threatened democracy. A whole new realm of legal jurisprudence has emerged! Limited laws to address this emerging threat have created a quagmire of uncertainty.

Authoritarianism, anti-pluralism, and anti-institutional populism are posing serious threats to democracy. Socialism and communism are appealing to increasing numbers of political leaders because they centralize power and control – but limit democracy. There is growing reluctance to restrain this untamed intrusion into most everyone’s lives.

The massive availability of computers, smart phones, and the internet led to a revolution in social media platforms such as Meta, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and messaging platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram.

• These created a public sphere for anyone to express ideas, opinions, and thoughts.
• The legal and moral challenges quickly became protean: How should content be moderated?
• What standards should be used? (Political, moral, religious, social, etc.?)[1]
• How can these standards be enforced?

Justifying Limitations to Freedom of Expression

The freedom of expression in a healthy state allows opinions, convictions, and beliefs and contributes to a meaningful participation in democracy. The state may legitimately, however, limit this liberty on the grounds of national security, public order, public health, or public morals.

A related international “legal instrument” was developed called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which recognizes the freedom of expression orally, in writing, or in print through art or media of one’s choice.

• This document conveys that freedom of expression is a liberty and a right, even an entitlement.
• It demands limiting constraints or interference on expression.

Such freedom of expression is important to democracy, political participation, media, voting, even criticism of leaders and the government. Yet, when the state deems it necessary to limit it, it should demonstrate a compelling reason to justify such action.[2]

International examples are growing, however, where countries have levied unwarranted restrictions. This means that freedom of expression is vulnerable. Most restrictions come from a desire to wield control in support of an agenda. Such limitations are not unlike socialistic philosophies.

Prophecy anticipates restrictive measures against expression of certain beliefs. They are related to the “mark of the beast” concern (Revelation 13:16-17, 3:12).

Compelling Reason to Regulate Social Media

It took only two years (2021 on) to observe social media platforms being used as a basis for sedition, advancing supremacist ideas, and sowing disinformation that weakens society and even national security.

• This quickly became a serious cultural issue.
• Where will jurisprudence turn?

Options that are being discussed:

1. Propose new Congressional laws that would give a federal agency oversight and control of a social media platform.

Social media might be seen to naturally fall within the purview of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Reno v. ACLU (1997) established, among other things, that internet companies are not broadcasters. Internet companies have also been granted exemption from the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the law under which the FCC would likely regulate extremist content.

Alternately, regulatory authority might be given to the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection (BCP). The logic here is that social media is a consumer product and could fall under BCP’s jurisdiction over product safety. Such jurisdiction might be too narrow for the problems at hand, however. The need for social media regulation extends beyond physical safety, financial abuse, or even mental wellness; rather it extends into the realms of protecting civil society and national security.

These demonstrate the complexities and uncertainties of this problem and the risk of control beyond our existing Constitution and Bill of Rights.

2. Make internet companies liable for what they publish. But – they are unlike traditional publishing companies. The courts would, therefore, rule in their favor. If their algorithms restricted information, it would/could be seen as suppression of free speech.
3. Congress could require greater transparency by passing laws and requiring media platforms to make data available to third party researchers and evaluators. That would open the door for evaluating firms to have access to their privately protected data through this power and discovery. It would shatter privacy standards. Yet, who would set the standards?

Internet use remains a legal frontier with an unpredictable future, even volatile and restrictive regulations!

The original laws moving this nation into the greatest and freest country may be inadequate in today’s world of technology. Any alternative restrictions or control would likely open the door to suppression of some speech.[3]

Legal Concern

Will moderating online speech lead to minimizing harm or silencing dissent?

Global criticism has arisen against social media companies in how they currently “moderate user content” under the subjective umbrella of accountability.

“These companies often face critical human rights dilemmas: aggressively combating what is viewed as harmful content risks silencing ‘protected speech’: speech that, under international law, should be permitted. Intervening with or removing content affects the rights to freedom of expression and privacy and can easily lead to censorship.”[4]

Between 2019 and 2021 over forty international laws were passed regulating online content. Scores of others were entertained. One individual from The United Human Rights directors, Peggy Hicks, said that this has immense consequences for public debate and participation.

• She bluntly said that this will jeopardize human rights.
• “Some governments see this legislation as a way to limit speech they dislike and even silence civil society or other critics.”[5]

One of the most precious commodities in democratic societies is trust. The current discussions risk overly broad liability imposed on companies of user-generated content. Regulators trust that their laws will be adhered to, politicians want opposition views to be suppressed, and the average citizen wants free expression. There is no simple answer.

The internet has no borders, notes Hicks, appealing for safe digital space for people to exercise their rights. Though sounding idealistic, there is no way to effectively control digital content without restricting someone’s freedom.

Social media companies are often criticized both for failing to take down harmful content and for when they do. People are being targeted by incrementalism online, others censored for their opinions and acts. Regardless, end results will be less freedom and imperative restrictions.[6]

Private Censorship – a Worrisome Trend

The U.S. Constitution and many in Europe guarantee free expression and protection of the private arena from interference. However, with social media, people are invited to use that private platform, not protected by law!

• If it is private and the public has access, should there be rules governing what is said?
• Should the social media sphere be redefined as public domain? If so, judicial regulation would quickly arrive.

In an excellent review of this growing international dilemma, Stefan Theil of Cambridge University notes:

“Free expression is generally not thought of as a boundless guarantee, nor to have automatic priority over conflicting values. Mill [prior legal opinion] famously argued that imposing restraints through law is indispensable to achieving individual liberty and therefore endorsed restricting expression to prevent harm to others.”

• Constitutional rights have previously been to limit state action. Its concern was to encourage limited government, not private authority.
• It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that individuals can be harmed or restricted in the private sector. [7]

As complicated as this internet/free-speech issue is, there is an additional matter gnawing at liberty in the United States. A private organization, The Foundation for Freedom Online, reported that an agency called the “Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) has received billions of dollars in federal contracts to silence conservative media outlets.

• Those taxpayer dollars have been filtered through GARM to four big global advertising agencies that have become architects of online censorship.
• GARM has criticized the U.S. Constitution. They have suggested closing some media outlets such as Fox News, The Daily Wire, Elon Musk’s Twitter (now X), Spotify, and Breitbart News. A top executive said that he “hated their ideology.”

That taxpayer money is being filtered to those advertising agencies that promote left-wing thought![8]

Representative Jim Jordon (R – Ohio) recently concluded that the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) violated federal antitrust laws. This powerful organization restricted advertising dollars from going to conservative news outlets. Targeted to censor (but not limited to): Breitbart News, Fox News, The Daily Wire, X with Elon Musk, and Spotify.

This alliance is trying to restrict speech and persuasions in advertising that differ from theirs. GARM has tremendous marketing influence and power. Its actions are anti-democratic and currently restrict American freedoms. They actively monitor many agencies for context they don’t like and then restrict their advertisers![9] The Department of Justice has limited interest.

“Hate Speech” – Unregulated Tyranny

In Washington State both the House and Senate passed a law establishing a hotline for callers to report “hate speech.” One could make a perfectly legal comment but be seen as biased and, therefore, hateful. Compensation up to $2,000 is available to callers!

Kathy Hochul, New York governor, has set up a phone and website to report hate crimes and bias incidents. In Michigan the House has passed Bill 4474, making it a felony to cause someone to “feel terrorized, frightened, or threatened.” Therefore, even misgendering someone could lead to a felony conviction, fines, and prison.

In the United Kingdom, a former police officer was jailed for twenty weeks over a joke he privately shared in a WhatsApp post. He filmed his dog making a Nazi salute. Because he posted it online, this man received an additional $1,000 fine.

Scotland has a Hate Crime and Public Order Act with officers and prosecutors policing hatred against certain disabilities, religions, homosexuals, and transgenders. The government is prompting people to report what they hear, including those misgendering someone and insisting that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

In February 2024 the European Union’s Digital Services Act obliged social media grants to delete anything the EU deems “disinformation.”

For much of the past 2000 years, church and state in Europe policed religious thought and action. The Bible was kept away from being translated into common languages of ordinary citizens. The doctrine of the Trinity was passed by The Council of Nicaea as a core doctrine of the Roman Church. Quickly, Roman authorities began to destroy documents that didn’t support this thinking. Even Martin Luther presided over a book burning and advised that religious thinkers who didn’t agree with him be banned by the state!

The freedom that the west has enjoyed for two centuries, which has been “precious,” is being threatened.[10] Public and private trends are leaning heavily in the area of control.

Danger Signs in America

The American Board of Internal Medicine recently revoked the certifications of Drs. Pierre Kory and Paul Marik, following a two-year investigation into their promotion of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine as treatments for COVID-19. These physicians also questioned the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

This is a dangerous shift away from the principle of medical discourse and scientific debate. People have differing points of view. Medicine is progressive in discovery and scientific understanding. Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine have proven effective in treating the Covid-19 virus. In addition, the vaccines have created their own serious complications in many patients.

“The ABIM [American Board of Internal Medicine] is violating principles of equal protection, due process, and rules of evidence and has gone ex post facto to find reasons to attack qualified ABIM-certified doctors who innovated and saved lives early in the pandemic.”

Though the physicians defended themselves with 170 published scientific supportive references and a 60-page response, they lost their board certification.[11] ABIM has moved from its impeccable scientific sphere to a political one.

Former President Trump said: “There is nothing the political establishment will not do, … and no lie they will not tell to hold on to their prestige and power at your expense. The Washington establishment and the financial and media corporations that fund it, exist for only one reason: to protect and enrich itself.”[12] Since then, America is facing:

1. An illegal mass lawfare campaign against Donald Trump in an effort to cast him in prison – or even take his life
2. Rapidly degrading economy
3. Skyrocketing crime in our major cities
4. An explosion of antisemitism
5. Growing censorship and silencing of all those who oppose the deep state

The federal defense and foreign policy establishments, especially the CIA, have turned against free speech. According to Mike Benz, former official of the Trump State Department, now executive director of Foundation for Freedom Online, said that the deep state is pressing toward a totalitarian agenda. Benz notes that the Bill of Rights is being undermined with dangerous and subversive charges against conservatives, Republicans, constitutionalists, “MAGA” Trump supporters, and politically active Christians.

If totally decent law-abiding American citizens oppose the narrative and agendas of the deep state, they are regarded as the newest terrorist-type threat, which needs suppression. They are charged with infusing “misinformation” or “disinformation,” now referred to as “malinformatoin.”

Powerful agencies that support and even lead this sinister agenda include the State Department, Department of Justice, NATO, IMF, World Bank, and many United Nations NGO’s (non-governmental organizations). These organizations are redefining democracy and see their leadership being threatened.

“These people openly champion political corruption, censorship, oppression, persecution and an utterly undemocratic ruling system – as long as it’s run by them.”[13]

The White House tries to be the Federal Government

In 1989 the internet-backed worldwide web was created with the demarcation of information and rapid commercialization, and was initially governed by five principles, called the “Declaration of Internet Freedom” (DIF).

1. Non-censorship
2. Universal access
3. Freedom to connect and create
4. The right to privacy – the right to control personal information
5. Protection for technology and innovation

However, governments and the elites who supervised these ideals moved to protect their authoritarian positions, developing a pernicious Censorship-Industrial Complex (CIC). This rapidly progressed to where many news and social media outlets colored the content and discourses with left-wing “hues” that disguised the intent and operations of global elites.

• More recently, this consortium decided to limit free speech on the internet and control the flow of information!
• Since the U.S. government is restricted within the First Amendment, NGO’s and front agencies were enlisted to do the “dirty work.” The DIF met its demise.

“In 2022, days after Elon Musk committed to a pro-free speech vision on acquiring Twitter, the Biden White House issued the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, in direct contradiction with the 2012 Declaration of Internet Freedom…. while criticizing the policies of ‘disinformation’ and ‘harassment’ in the pursuit of ‘reclaiming the promise of the internet.’  It expressed concern about online platforms that spread ‘illegal or harmful content,’ threaten safety and foment violence, and undermine ‘respect for and protection of human rights and democratic institutions.’”[14]

Who decides what “disinformation,” “harassment,” and illegal, harmful content is?

May of 2024 the Committee on the Judiciary and Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government filed a report on the CIC as an entity that assesses and removes unacceptable content, filters, and manipulates search engine results, flags disfavored material and deplatforms and silences offenders. “It treats speech as a permitted activity rather than a fundamental right.” 

The report notes that the CIC is functioning to crush the key feature of the internet as a forum for free and open discourse, a space where truth is discovered through dialogue and debate “empowering people to hold government accountable” and reduce the risk of tyranny.

The committee reviewed tens of thousands of emails and documents exposing the extent of the White House campaign for censorship and pressure.

“The material revealed how Meta (the Facebook parent company), Alphabet (the YouTube parent company), and Amazon were coerced to censor videos, books, posts, and other online content and to change their content….

“Certain ideas and politics were proscribed from public conversation, undermining foundational democratic principles of valid discussion on important issues. Testimony even revealed that the U.S. government funded organizations to pressure advertisers to boycott platforms that refuse to censor certain kinds of information or opinion or curb them in the name of ‘fact-checking’ or ‘countering extremism….’

“As the Twitter Files were released from December 2022 to March 2023, suppression and cover-ups came to light.  Among the revelations were the concealment of the Hunter Biden laptop story, President Trump’s suspension, the sidelining of tweets favorable to the events of January 6, the FBI’s influence in acting against accounts that questioned the results of the 2020 election, and Twitter’s participation in online influence campaigns in other countries….

“The machinations of the CIC come to light and people become aware of how the information they access is increasingly manipulated…. Now, the public knows how government mandates forced tech companies to toe the line on so-called misinformation.  In 2023, 138 scholars, public intellectuals, and journalists from across the political spectrum framed the Westminster Declaration, warning of the CIC’s machinations and urging its dismantling. The pushback has begun and must continue with full force.”[15]

The Conundrum of Free Speech

Democratic ideas are to a great measure self-regulatory if framed within Christian Principles. This became a convicting drive among the brilliant minds forming America’s democratic society.

• In the last three to four years, extremist social proposals have invaded society, especially through the internet.
• Evil directives have originated from a myriad of locations.
• Social media platforms have been used to organize seditious ideas and sow disinformation that has weakened civil society, even national security.

The questions being analyzed to resolve this dilemma raise many threats to democracy. How can these amazing technological advances be regulated without compromising the democratic tradition of free speech?

No answer “would be easy or ideal. All would require new legislation that could withstand Supreme Court scrutiny. And yet, without some kind of government intervention, social media companies are unlikely to self-regulate effectively.”[16]

Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Reno v. ACLU (1997) established, among other things, that internet companies were broadcasters. Internet companies have also been granted exemption from the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the law under which the FCC would likely regulate extremist content.

These laws were formulated when the internet was young and vastly “immature.” It is also apparent from the political process that social media can influence thinking and decisions, even adversely so. Any review process would be subject to political bias, moral standards, and need for power to influence, even control.

Is it possible that the only answer is reorienting, reconditioning, or thinking that democracy can no longer be sustained? Is it possible that America’s internal social checks and balances can no longer serve society?[17]

A Fearful Reality

Edwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, has called for a new U.S. Constitution. He claims that failing to make changes will cause the U.S. to “drift toward authoritarianism.”

• He just (2024) published a new book, No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the Unted States.
• Scrapping the Constitution may sound impossible, improbable, and distinctly against the current laws and Constitution in America – but the inherent legal internet freedoms are being restricted and misused to freely promote evil and control.

John and Nisha Whitehead of Rutherford Institute note, however, that on any given day, the average American is monitored, surveilled, spied on, or tracked in twenty different ways, both by government and corporate “eyes” and “ears.”

The small deterrent on actual crime is miniscule compared to the suppressive effect of the broad surveillance underway! This only leads to chilling the lawful expression of the First Amendment. “Weaponized surveillance is re-engineering a society structured around the aesthetic of fear.”

This echoes “a quote from President Harry Truman …: ‘Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”

America is on the way to totalitarianism, which is predicted in the Book of Revelation, related especially to that Mark of the Beast.[18]

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently wrote a letter to the House Judiciary Committee in August 2024. He unflinchingly said that it was “wrong” for the Biden–Harris administration to strongarm Facebook by taking down postings…. I regret we were not more outspoken about it.”

“Zuckerberg’s letter confirms evidence already presented to the U.S. Supreme Court and in congressional testimony … that [shows] the Biden-Harris administration repeatedly pressured social media companies to censor — getting them to do the dirty work the First Amendment prohibits government from doing directly.”[19]

Burgeoning Crises

If social media companies choose what they permit, it will restrict millions of users to accept the opinions of its owners. That media could even be weaponized, supporting political views, under government mandates, as has been demonstrated.

Openness within the social media has created platforms for terrorist recruitment, pornography, brainwashing the young, anti-religious bigotry, and regretfully, a tool itself for the government. One side or the other is faced with a most uncomfortable conundrum.[20]

Long ago, expositor White foresaw that our republican form of government will finally repudiate every principle of its Constitution.[21]

The free speech the West has enjoyed and benefited from for the last 200 years is precious and rare. The United States is losing it, sinking back into the misery and ignorance of the European past. Then, those in power controlled the reading, speaking and thinking of the masses.

This urge to dominate the actions, words, very thoughts of others, and to dominate reality itself is a perverse expression of human nature. The human mind is actively hostile toward the laws of nature and nature’s Creator, and has been since the very first choices of the first human generation (see Genesis 2 and Romans 8:7).

“The Bible traces this nature in man back to a real, actual, intelligent, powerful single source: Lucifer. This being said, “I will be the most high” (the correct rendering of Isaiah 14:14). He exalted his will over reality to the point of fighting his very Creator, wanting to seize the ultimate authority in the universe.

“The first human beings, and every human since, have followed after this same desire.”[22]

The current worldwide plunge into censorship, spying, and controlling the narrative has reached a point where there will be no turning back.

There will be segmental, incomplete, and window dressing attempts to create checks and balances. This will never fully succeed. Prophecy is clear that this downward spiral will progress, crossing the line into suppressive religious mandates, finally bringing persecution. Then God will step in and bring earth’s history to an end.

Franklin S. Fowler, Jr., M.D.

Prophecy Research Initiative – non-profit 501(c)3 © 2024

EndTime Issues…, Number 287, October 3, 2024

References: