Congresswoman Kat Cammack Issues Statement On Social Media Censorship

Press release from the office of Congresswoman Kat Cammack

Today, Congresswoman Kat Cammack issued the following statement about the censorship of free speech on social media platforms following the lifetime ban of President Trump on social media.

“The right of free speech is a cornerstone of our Republic and any free society. When an organization eliminates an individual’s ability to freely debate, those institutions trample on the most important work of our Founding Fathers.

“Conservatives have grown unacceptably and unrightfully accustomed to censorship by Big Tech over the past few years. The blatant hypocrisy of a duly elected national leader being removed from social media platforms, while those same platforms continue to allow vitriol from known terrorist leaders and authoritarian dictators around the globe, must not be ignored.

“This is an issue that will affect everyone, regardless of political ideology, but we as conservatives must continue to lead on it and find meaningful solutions for every American.”

To stay up to date with all of Congresswoman Cammack’s activities, like the official FacebookInstagram, and Twitter pages.

  • She’s wrong on so many levels; In my opinion she has to share the guilt for what lead up to the storming of the Capitol Building; She’s not innocent and her hands have blood on them.

    • I disagree with your opinion and thankfully, that hasn’t been taken from us…yet.

      What part in her statement is she actually wrong about?
      Why is she guilty for what occurred on Capitol grounds?

      Using your misguided rationale the same can be said for the lives lost and properties damaged during the riots/protests/looting that occurred during the past year.
      What occurred last week was wrong and it was a national disgrace but should we be proud of the occurrences I have already made mention of? If that is something you feel is to “be proud of,” you too, show your own political hypocrisy and bias. Then again maybe you do feel responsible for the wrongs against minority races although those wrongs were probably committed many years prior to your birth. If indeed you feel guilty, perhaps you can offer your home or some other form of restitution for those insensitive crimes you and your children, if you have any, are charged with committing. There are a number of minority neighborhoods that have experienced gentrification through no fault of their own that would greatly appreciate a nice warm bed or house to have during these difficult times.
      Be careful before you cast the first stone.

  • Free Speech is a guarantee of our Constitution.Social Media can not usurp this constitutionally granted right. They are not above the law, no matter how powerful or monopolistic they have become. In years past, when The Bell System had a monopolistic hold on the communication industry, the corporation was divided by legal means. This should happen to the likes Facebook, Google, etc. They hold far too much power over the Communication Industry & it not their right to stifle or prohibit anyone’s means of communication. The Law, they are not. Their billions in wealth & power give them more control over the population than has our government!!! Today they silence someone they politically don’t like; tomorrow it’s YOU! They are way too powerful! They need to lawfully be broken into several corporations as was the Bell System.

  • Philosophically Kat is correct. I’m with her in that respect andI hope many others are with her regardless of political party. It seems self evident that it is a bad idea to restrict speech based on the content of speech and a really bad idea to restrict speech based on the identity of the speaker. The idea of a lifetime ban is a really really bad idea.

    I don’t follow Kat’s the logic that it is blatantly hypocritical for tech companies to remove a duly elected national leader from social media platforms while not removing authoritarian leaders and leaders who directly or indirectly use violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims (i.e. terrorist leaders) at least when authoritarian dictators and terrorist leaders engage in cruel and bitter criticism (i.e. vitriol). Kat has quite a few constituents who believe President Trump IS an authoritarian leader who uses or condones unlawful violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims and on social platforms engages in cruel and bitter criticism. What Kat sees as hypocritical to these constituents may not seem hypocritical and not even inconsistent. Kat in my opinion undermines her message by introducing the premise that it may okay in some circumstances to limit speech based on its content (speech that some may experience as vitriolic) and identity of the speaker (a person some may consider authoritarian or prone to incite violence or intimidate in pursuit a political goal.

    But I do agree with what I take to be Kat’s main point.

    Constitutional imperatives mean different with respect to private companies than government this may be an issue that is best dealt with via legislation. I look forward to learning that Kat and other young congressman and congresswomen of both parties have introduced legislation addressing this important issue.

    • Under the present circumstances it IS blatantly *wrong* for tech companies to exercise this power as they have been allowed to behave both as platforms and publishers. True enough, our so-called “leaders” have allowed this to go on probably because a good many of them are profiting from it, but it is, nevertheless, wrong. Now, if these monopolies want to cop to being publishers everything changes. Unless and until that happens, the people have right to feel as if they’ve been harmed by these companies. It’s not as simple as “it’s a private company and therefore can do as it pleases”. This is an issue that urgently requires remedying. Too bad nobody seemed interested in it until now.

  • I agree with her comments about free speech being necessary–China shows all too clearly what happens when governments censor speech on the internet. I do not agree with the commenter who thought she was partially responsible for the riots–while her vote on certification was silly (the law was passed to solve the problem of states having two slates of electors–not to review the election), the incredible lack of preparation by the capitol police was the reason this was such horrifying event.

  • Jan 13: Protest today! 5pm @ NW 43 & NW 16 intersection. Masks & social distancing. Plane banner will fly overhead against Kat Cammack.
    Don’t do this. Trumpkins like her thrive on attention.

    • Do liberals have anything else to do but protest? Every time we turn around they’re protesting something. Now I know what my tax dollars are paying for…they would rather protest than get a job and be a productive member of society. That’s why so many fill the downtown areas at the drop of a hat. They don’t have anything to do with their lives. What a sad existence to wake up every morning and ask, “I wonder what I can be disappointed in today?”
      Speaking of attention – that’s why our very O.W.N. Dumb@r$e continues to visit this site. He craves the attention and it’s something he obviously is missing in his life.

  • >