The limousine liberal powers-that-be at Google seem determined to force the government to declare the search engine a public utility and regulate it to keep it from censoring free speech.

The latest case in point: Google banned a conservative PAC for life (warning that if it tried to open accounts under any other name, those would be banned, too) for the “crime” of running a 10-second ad opposing letting babies die.

Think I’m soft-pedaling it and that the ad must’ve really been incendiary, slanderous or misleading?

Watch it yourself and be aghast at Google.

TRENDING: Pelosi Reveals Legislation Aimed at Limiting Trump's Presidential Powers

Of course, Google isn’t the only tech giant that believes in free speech only up to a point (usually, the point where you criticize the left.)

Facebook just announced permanent suspensions of several right-wing “extremists” for allegedly promoting hate and violence.

While I have no sympathy for white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups, who, as President Trump said, should be condemned totally — and I agree that some of the banned people engage in irresponsible rhetoric — silencing speech should always be a last resort.

The Founders gave us the First Amendment to protect unpopular speech (popular, uncontroversial speech needs no protection), a fact that too many young Americans are no longer learning.

They believed that the proper response to bad ideas was good ideas, and the remedy for poor speech was more speech, not censorship.

Free and open debate exposes bad speech. Censorship merely drives it underground.

It also empowers the censors, who get to decide what constitutes speech deserving of silencing (and it always eventually works around to including speech that criticizes the censors.)

Also worth noting with appropriately raised eyebrows and head-scratches: the media-dubbed “right-wing” extremists banned by Facebook include Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam.

I agree that his racist and anti-Semitic speech is incredibly offensive, but since when is Farrakhan considered to be on the right?

RELATED: Op-Ed: Congress Takes on Big Tech’s Data Swipes

Blogger Allahpundit at HotAir.com has an interesting theory for why Farrakhan is suddenly being retroactively classified as a “right-winger”: it serves as cover against accusations from the right that they only de-platform right-wingers, while keeping the left from getting angry that they sacrificed one left-wing extremist to keep up a veneer of impartiality.

The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.