In what amounts to editorial control over user content – and a donation in kind to the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate – Facebook says it will delete content from Infowars.com shared by users unless the users themselves are “explicitly condemning Infowars.”

Downloadable Version: Please Spread Far and Wide:

Alex Jones Responds to Facebook Banning Infowars – And His Name! https://t.co/d4sWrZnTLY — Kris Blough #CitizenMedia #PatriotRevolution (@stopglobalism1) May 2, 2019

According to an article by the Atlantic:

Infowars is subject to the strictest ban. Facebook and Instagram will remove any content containing Infowars videos, radio segments, or articles (unless the post is explicitly condemning the content), and Facebook will also remove any groups set up to share Infowars content and events promoting any of the banned extremist figures, according to a company spokesperson.

This runs contrary to the special legal protections Facebook enjoys under Section 230 of the Communications Act which grants the site legal immunity for user-generated content as long as Facebook acts as a neutral platform and not as a publisher.

Social Media Trying to Politically Isolate President Trump Ahead of 2020 by Chilling Independent Speech

It also shows the next phase Facebook is launching to chill independent speech, particularly if it’s not left-leaning, because ostensibly other voices will eventually suffer the same fate, such as mainstream conservatives which back President Trump’s re-election.

For example, will Tucker Carlson be next?

This unparalleled censorship by Facebook, which reeks of desperation, likely serves as a way for social media to hinder the president’s re-election chances by stifling speech supportive of the Trump agenda going into 2020, which is conceivable given that the current Democratic frontrunner, Joe Biden, isn’t exactly a rockstar candidate.

It’s also likely backlash against the Mueller probe turning out to be a complete dud, although that really has nothing to do with Infowars; for one thing, the Mueller probe was based on legally shaky ground, according to Attorney General William Barr, who had issues with Mueller’s interpretation of an obstruction-of-justice statute at the core of the probe.

“When the June 2018 Barr memorandum [on the statue] became public in December, many Democrats tried to weaponize it against him. But because Barr’s memo was specific to a particular statute, and was perfectly defensible legal analysis, it was hard for the Democrats to get any traction,” according to HumanEvents.com. “In hindsight, however, it’s clear that Barr was the assassin Democrats feared. Within six weeks of his confirmation, the Mueller probe was over.”

“When Mueller equivocated on obstruction in his report, Barr affirmatively determined that there was no viable obstruction charge. In a twist, Barr didn’t rely on a narrow reading of § 1512(c)(2); instead, he exploited the malleability of Mueller’s theory and determined that Trump lacked the requisite intent to commit obstruction.”

In short, Democrats looking to remove President Trump from office put too many eggs into the Russiagate basket, so when that didn’t work out, it seems the next move is to continue banning conservative speech on social media in an attempt to politically isolate President Trump prior to the 2020 election.

The Emergency Election Sale is now live! Get 30% to 60% off our most popular products today!