In a joint statement with the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Trump campaign contends that there "is no other description for this than the muzzling of political speech."
The statement comes after Google's recent decision on November 20 to ban narrowly targeted political advertising from the Google platform, meaning political efforts like the Trump campaign will only be allowed to publish broad advertising that costs more and doesn't necessarily reach the intended audience.
Moving forward, Google will allow political advertisers to target voters based on criteria including age, gender, and zip code. But political advertising will no longer be allowed to target users based on voter affiliation or public voter records.
"Google is clamping down on voter engagement and suppressing voter turnout," the statement goes on to contend.
For more related news about Big Tech censorship, be sure to check out Censorship.news.
The Trump campaign obviously isn't the only campaign that's affected by this change. Democratic presidential hopeful Tulsi Gabbard actually filed a lawsuit against Google for blocking her campaign's ads following the first televised debate.
Gabbard isn't even the president, and yet her campaign took the opportunity to seek a proper legal remedy against Google for unfairly stifling the reach of her advertising. Elizabeth Warren has similarly spoken out against censorship of political advertising on social media.
But President Trump has yet to do anything other than whine about the problem, which certainly isn't going to get it fixed any time soon. Trump is the one who currently holds our nation's top seat, so why hasn't his administration taken formidable action against this censorship onslaught by Big Tech?
It remains an undeniable fact that tech companies like Google are in violation of the provisions of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), also known as "Safe Harbor" provisions, which shield them from liability for the content that flows through their platforms on the basis that these tech companies are merely content providers.
Similar to how your cable internet company operates, tech companies like Google are supposed to provide neutral platforms for you to access and use their services. They're not supposed to regulate how you use their services in terms of content restrictions centered around political or other agendas, otherwise they become content publishers with full liability.
In other words, Section 230 protections in the CDA no longer apply to tech corporations like Google that decide to actively police the content that flows through their platforms, which is precisely what they're now doing. So, when is Congress, with the support of the Trump administration, finally going to take action?
"If they're acting like a publisher, which is what they're doing, they're doing the same sort of editorial decision making that newspapers and other print publications have been doing since immemorial," says Fred Campbell, a former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wireless bureau chief, about how tech companies like Google are operating well outside the bounds of the law with undue Section 230 of the CDA protections that no longer apply to them.
"If they want to do that, why are they not subject to the same rules that the print media is subject to?" he further asks. "If they want the ability to edit the Internet and take down (people like) Alex Jones, then they should not have Section 230 immunity."
To learn more about how the tech cabal is acting in a manner contrary to the Constitution and the First Amendment, be sure to check out FirstAmendment.news.
Sources for this article include: