Upholding Limited Government: Free Markets and Free Association, Not More Government, Should Expand and Protect Conservatives’ Speech on Social Media


This paper concerns the ongoing debate between liberal big-tech companies and conservative patrons of the companies—patrons who believe that their opinions are being discriminated against. Particularly, the paper addresses the calls by some conservatives to use government to force the companies to discriminate less. The paper analyzes the legal basis for using government force against the companies, and contrasts that method of change with an alternative: that conservatives exodus from the companies to the companies’ many competitors. The conclusion is that there is a legal basis for government to intervene or not. However, analyzing the issue Biblically, the conclusion is that free association and free markets, not expanded government authority, should be the vehicle of change.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. Tech Giants vs Government Goliaths
(A) Congress Floating Unconstitutional Tolerance
(B) President Forcing Unconstitutional Tolerance
(1) Government’s Discrimination vs Citizens’ Discrimination
(2) The Reciprocity of Law
(3) Conservatives’ Ironic Calls for Forced Association
III. Limited Government, Even during War and Against Monopolies
(A) Even War Does Not Necessarily Permit Government Intervention
(1) Government Discretion During War
(2) No Government Discretion During War
(3) Synthesis.
(B) Even Monopolies Do Not Necessarily Necessitate Government Intervention
(1) Sometimes Government Cannot Intervene
(a) Compelled Speech
(b) Right to Avoid Sodomites
(2) Sometimes Government Can Intervene
(a) Public Accommodations
(b) Right to Force Association with Transvestite Liars
(3) In any case, the Tech Giants are Not Even Monopolies
(a) Bitchute
(b) Minds
(c) Gab
(d) Spotify
(e) Alternatives, Realistically
IV. Animus Towards Tech-giants: realistic; or Only Hypocrisy
(A) Ingratitude
(B) Covetousness
(C) Appreciation
V. Free Market as a Biblical Principle
VI. Conclusion

I. Introduction

Present law addresses mounting complaints by conservatives about conduct by Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. (“tech giants”) that is alleged to be viewpoint-discrimination but that would be better described as free association. Executive Order No. 13925 (“the executive order”) incorrectly applies 47 U.S. Code § 230 (“section 230”) to target political opponents and preempt solution that would otherwise arise through the doctrines of free association and free market (“freedom and liberty”). This article proposes a re-examination of the proper role of freedom and liberty as remedies to actual or presumed view-point discrimination—favoring not more government but rather a utilization of many alternatives that are currently available in the free-market to provide a social media presence to conservatives. This research is important because it rebuts a growing area of conservative reliance on government as the only solution—or at least the best solution—to what are essentially free-association issues, thus issues better addressed by free markets; this research has real human consequences in the form of warning conservatives that leveraging government to force association is not conservative, and that by such leveraging, many otherwise conservative people are now painting themselves into a tech corner by advocacy that will surely hamper conservatives’ own right to “viewpoint-discrimination,” i.e., free association.

II. Tech Giants vs Government Goliaths

(A) Congress Floating Unconstitutional Tolerance

Many conservatives fiercely decry tech giant’s censorship of conservatives’ speech.[1] This is fine—until the social becomes political and suddenly conservatives are calling on government to force tech giants to treat conservatives nicer.[2]

(B) President Forcing Unconstitutional Tolerance

In a recent executive order, President Trump forbid the free speech of viewpoint discrimination by private parties such as the tech giants.[3]

(1) Government’s Discrimination vs Citizens’ Discrimination. To some, the president’s executive order seems like turnabout being fair play: big tech forces conservatives to watch their mouth—so the president tells big tech to watch its policies. However, the difference is that the Constitution forbids Government’s viewpoint-discrimination[4] but protects Citizen’s viewpoint-discrimination as free speech.[5] By using government to force the respective business of big tech to associate in a way that more please conservatives—those conservatives, to the extent of that force—cease to be conservative. There is nothing conservative about using governmental speech codes to corral the speech-codes of private business. Rather, a capitalistic system is composed of six institutions: economic motivation, private productive property, free enterprise, free markets, competition, and limited government.[6]

Instead, If the businesses are really so ruthless—surely free association in the free market can clear that up. Surely there are companies alternative to the tech giants who would happily absorb any and all angry defectors. The conservatives’ route would be to leverage and galvanize those alternative—and leave alone the tech giants as a few of many laboratories of democracy.[7]

(2) The Reciprocity of Law: The Wrongful Flattening of Laws to Get at Tech Giants. In A Man for All Seasons, a well-meaning character is incredulous that the protagonist states a belief that the devil should have the right to due process,[8] and the character famously remarks that he would “cut down every law in England” to get to the devil. To which the protagonist replies: “And when the devil turns ‘round, where would you hide—the laws all being laid flat? I would give the devil benefit of law for my own safety’s sake.”[9] There will be nowhere for conservatives to hide once the right to “viewpoint discrimination”—i.e. free association—has been flattened to root out the real or imagined political bigotry of tech giants. In an effort to flatten curve of real or imagine bigotry by tech giants against conservatives, those conservatives who advocate a governmental approach, they seek to demand not only the social responsibility of tech giants: they seek to demand how that social responsibility should play out. Advocating against big tech’s free speech to discriminate against conservative speech: this is an advocacy of conservatism—and certainly not the advocacy of liberty. It is a call for forced association.

(3) Conservatives’ Ironic Calls for Forced Association. Forcing tech giants into politically correct association with conservatives would do far more harm than good. It would be the equivalent of accepting the leftist myth of the government’s right to create a separation of church and state that protects government from God.[10] There is no such constitutional wall to protect government from God or the faithful, nor should there be a governmental bridge over which to shuttle conservatives to better treatment from tech giants. Rather, it should be faith in God and appreciation for free association and free markets—these should animate conservatives’ animus against speech-codes, shadow banning, and all other forms of tech-giant censorship.

Association between conservatives and social media companies should be based on consent between the parties, not government looming over the companies and demanding that consent arise (or continue) in whatever way conservatives unilaterally feel that it should. Conservatives who feel trampled by the speech-code or censorship policies of tech giants ought to take part in a massive digital exodus—away from the tech giants and towards the many waiting alternatives.

III. Limited Government, Even during War and Against Monopolies

(A) Even War Does Not Necessarily Permit Government Intervention

All the real and imagined discrimination by the tech giants against conservatives can hardly be described as actual war. Yet even if it were war—still, analysis would be due as to whether government may intervene.

(1) Government Discretion During War. It is common knowledge that one cannot shout “fire” (without cause) in a crowded theater. This maxim arose from the opinion in Schenck v. United States.[11] In Schenck, the court used the example of shouting “fire” as an analogy in upholding the conviction of Charles T. Schenck and Elizabeth Baer for violating the Espionage Act by speaking out against the war-draft of World War one.[12]

(2) No Government Discretion During War. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer,[13] the Court held that the president of the United States, though the nation was at war, exceeded his constitutional authority by seizing the nations steel mills.[14]

(3) Synthesis. If actual war allows for limited government, how much more may mere political agreement—as between the tech giants and conservatives—require that the government forgo inflicting itself on one party or the other (or both).

(B) Even Monopolies Do Not Necessarily Necessitate Government Intervention

One could accept, if only for the sake of argument, that the tech-giants discriminate against conservative thought—even discriminate massively—but still, the existence of discrimination does not, in and of itself, trigger government authority to intervene, much less does it mandate intervention. However, the existence of a monopoly can tend towards the government having authority, even a mandate to intervene. But as a matter of law, government can intervene against some discrimination arising in a monopoly—but not all discrimination in a monopoly.

(1) Sometimes Government Cannot Intervene

(a) Compelled Speech

The Supreme Court precedent in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civ. R. Com’n[15] rejects government intervention against discrimination that would compel speech. In Masterpiece, the Court ruled seven to two that it would amount to unlawful compelled speech to force a Christian baker to use his artistry to write a congratulatory message about sodomy on a wedding cake.[16]

(b) Right to Avoid Sodomites

The Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision for Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,[17] held that government cannot intervene on behalf of a sodomite who seeks to force a religious organizations to include the sodomite in the organization’s groups. The Dale Court held that to force the Scouts to employ the sodomy-rights activist would “force the organization to send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.”[18]

(2) Sometimes Government Can Intervene

(a) Public Accommodations

The area of public accommodations—hotels, restaurants, theaters, etc.—invites government intervention against certain discrimination, e.g., based on race, color, religion, and national origin,[19] particularly when the discrimination affects interstate commerce.[20] (However, even here, the law limits proscription of discrimination only to businesses open to the public.[21] Moreover, it is generally lawful (and sometimes even required) to discriminate based on age—e.g., when someone is too young to go to an R-rated move.[22])

(b) Right to Force Association with Transvestite Liars

There are two sexes.[23] Nevertheless, in Bostock v. Clayton County,[24] the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that free association does not extend to employers who do not want to be party to an employment contract with someone who dresses in such a way as to deliberately mislead other people about his or her sex, and who, by that misleading, seeks to undermine the longstanding cultural tradition of acknowledging and appreciating the biological differences between men and women.[25]

(3) In any case, the Tech Giants are Not Even Monopolies. Many viable alternatives exist apart from the tech giants. Plenty people would welcome a digital exodus away from the tech giants.[26] Some even actively advocate a fight to reduce the tech giants’ power and influence.[27] Still, more than few of those would-be exiteers wonder whether a digital exodus is realistic,[28] with others favoring a “break up” of the tech giants[29]—and still others questioning either or both the efficacy of such a break up.[30] In any case, all this rigmarole indicates that the tech giants are far from monopolies—that there are effective free-markets alternatives to the forced-association now being advocate by some conservatives.[31]

(a) Bitchute. As a video-hosting website alternative to Youtube, Bitchute offers much more freedom of speech. However, Bitchute also highlights a problem arising from deregulation: virtually unchecked vitriol in videos, and comment sections full of incitement to violence. Purely, Bitchute is an alternative to the free-speech woes of conservatives. But it is hardly a viable option for those who just want to speak freely—given that visitors to the website will be accosted with a sidebar full of all manner of the worst ideas that someone thought up that day.

(b) Minds. As a social-media alternative to Facebook, Minds does not censor content at all—as long as it is legal. With better internal policing than Bitchute, Minds does not have as much objectively ridiculous content. However, Minds does highlight another issue faced by alternatives to the tech giants: monotony. Minds is more less nothing but post after post of everything one is not allowed to say on Facebook. For many, it will be refreshing to see all the free speech allowed on Minds, but then one will be reminded that it is not enough to speak freely—still, one must have something worth saying. And less than that is provided by a website that is little more than a repository of grievances against other tech-platforms.

(c) Gab. As a “microblogging” alternative to Twitter, Gab offers all the short, quick quips without any of the Twitter-jail tactics. Gab has the vulgarity problem of Bitchute and the monotony of Minds. Also though, Gab highlights yet another problem that will arise for those entrepreneurs hoping to cut into the profits of the tech giants: propaganda. The bad press of Gab[32] testifies to the fact that emerging tech companies will not receive the same tolerance as established players when someone on the site says something that can be held against the upstart company. Still, Gab’s founder Andrew Torba promotes his platform as a free-speech alternative and actively courts popular social-media figures, including President Trump.[33]

(d) Spotify. Proving the potential of alternatives to the tech giants, the relatively miniature tech-giant, Spotify, recently contracted with YouTube superstar Joe Rogan, who agreed to host his podcast exclusively on Spotify, in a deal reportedly worth as much as 100-million-dollars. However, as of now, Spotify’s acquisition of Rogan could hardly been considered a full victory against the tech giants, given that Spotify depends on Google to function.[34]

(e) Alternatives, Realistically. Much work would have to go into any alternative company for it to overtake the tech giants. Yet that is exactly the kind of work that could begin if conservatives (and others) were to give the alternatives a chance and invests in the upstarts. And in any case, the goal seems to be not overtaking the tech giants but rather just having an alternative to the tech giants real or imagine discrimination against conservative points of view.

The temptation will be to wait for a company that is more or less ready-made. After all, the tech giants are so massive and useful and interesting and fun—any alternative, so goes the theory, should be at least somewhat comparable to the thing being left. But as hard as it is to believe for those who have only known the tech giants in their current form: each of these giants began as a tiny little company that bought and begged and crawled its way to the top. There is precisely no reason why the alternatives that now toil in the shadow of the tech giants cannot emerge—as the giants did—through dedication and consistency among enough users.

IV. Animus Towards Tech-giants: realistic; or Only Ingratitude

(A) Ingratitude

There is a time for every purpose under heaven.[35] There will come a time for a decision among those conservatives who say they are fed up with the censorship of the tech giants. The decision will be whether they really are that sick of the giants. In the modern era, ingratitude permeates much of society. The decision whether to stay with tech giants or strike out for alternatives—will need to be made consciously, with an awareness of all the great products, services, and conveniences that the tech giants provide.

(B) Covetousness

The temptation will be to delude oneself into a demand to have one’s cake and eat it too: to leave behind the censorship of the tech giants—but keep all the luxuries that the giants provide. This is not realistic, yet nor is it moral: it is wrong to covet the belongings of others.[36] So too is it wrong to seek all the benefits of a former association—as between a conservative and, say, Facebook—while stepping away from the contributions one previously made in the situation (e.g. here, the conservative providing the attention, that draws the advertisers that make it possible for Facebook to function).

(C) Appreciation

It will end up being the case, for far more than zero conservatives, that political speech (tossed into the internet void) is less important than, say, instant worldwide access to family and friends, the uploading of photos and videos, the collecting and sharing of one’s own trials and tribulations. It will be the case for plenty that they want a social media account not so that they can pretend to be on the edge of changing the world with it, but instead simply as a super-fancy Styrofoam cup on a string—one connected to the digital treehouses of all their buddies. It may be the case that there is far less of a market to trounce the tech giants than some people imagine.

V. Free Market as a Biblical Principle

The Bible states that we are to be fruitful and multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it.[37] This could conceivably be done under the yoke socialism or some other form of slavery, but man is made in the image of God[38]—and God is not a slave. The liberty of life which God has extended to His creation implies man’s God-given privilege of free-association: the right to choose whom we will join or avoid. Free markets arise inevitably from free association. These free markets—not government leverage, however well intended—should be the primary aim for resolving disagreements about the quality of a contractual relationship between two assenting parties.

Conservatives who contract with a social media company and join that company’s platform—they should play by that companies rules.[39] If a company wants to saturate its users with leftist bigotry—the company has the God-given to make that bad decision, just as those who deny God have the privilege of being given over to their reprobate mind, as promised by LONANG (the law of nature and of nature’s God).[40]

VI. Conclusion

It is hardly an overstatement to say that the tech giants of Google, Facebook, and Twitter actively trample and discriminate against conservative opinions. But even in times of war, and instances of monopoly, still there is reason to err on the side of limited government—not a government that forces one’s political opponents to provide a digital megaphone to one’s views. Conservatives would do well to leave the tech giants high and dry. Yet a bridge too far—and an increasingly popular view among some conservatives—is that government should be used to trample the free-association rights of the discriminatory tech giants. According to those conservatives, turnabout is fair play, saying in effect, “the tech giants do not afford us the right to speak freely—so we should use the government to constrain their free-speech right to constrain our free-speech rights!” However, as a matter of U.S. law, private citizens have a right to free association, and so the government should leave alone the tech giants. Beyond that, many alternative platforms exist that are effective alternatives to the tech giants—and could easily even rival the tech giants—if only conservatives would cease their expedient loyalty to the disloyal giants, and exodus, en masse, to the alternatives. Finally, the free market—as an aspect of free association—is a biblical principle, which invokes the power of reality, i.e., LONANG. There is no better problem-solver than that.


1. Ronn Blitzer, Conservatives list allegations of Big Tech bias amid tense hearing appearance (Fox News, 2020), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/conservatives-list-allegations-of-big-tech-bias-amid-tense-hearing-appearance.
2. See, e.g., Ted Cruz, Facebook has been censoring or suppressing conservative speech for years (Fox News, 2018) (arguing—wrongly—that section 230 forbids viewpoint discrimination by private parties), https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-ted-cruz-facebook-has-been-censoring-or-suppressing-conservative-speech-for-years; see generally Pete Schroeder, Facebook’s Zuckerberg grilled in U.S. Congress on digital currency, privacy, elections (Reuters, 2019), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-congress/facebooks-zuckerberg-grilled-in-u-s-congress-on-digital-currency-privacy-elections-idUSKBN1X2167.
3. Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship (whitehouse.gov, 2020), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/.
4. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995); Ne. Pennsylvania Freethought Soc’y v. Cty. of Lackawanna Transit Sys., 938 F.3d 424 (3d Cir. 2019).
5. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000); Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018).
6. Richard A. Mann and Barry S. Roberts, Smith and Roberson’s business law 18 (emphasis added) (Cengage Learning 15th ed., 2012) (ebook) (quoting Adam Smith, The wealth of nations (1776)).
7. See generally New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (“It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”).
8. Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons (1960).
9. Id.
10. In arguing for a wall between church and state, Thomas Jefferson said that “[t]he legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions.” Letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802), https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html. By this, Jefferson meant that government should not encroach on the right to religion. Impossibly, modern laypeople and even scholars have warped Jefferson’s call to limit government—as a call to limit God and the faithful.
11. 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
12. Id. at 50.
13. 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
14. Id. at 588 (“The Constitution did not subject this law-making power of Congress to presidential or military supervision or control.”); see generally The War Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548) (limiting the president’s authority to use military force without Congress having declared war).
15. 138 S.Ct. 1719 (2018).
16. Id. at 1720.
17. 530 U.S. 640 (2000).
18. Id. at 653.
19. 42 U.S. Code § 2000a.
20. Id.
21. Id. at § 2000b.
22. But here, there is still a distinction between what a theater may do and what it must do. The Motion Picture Association of American (MPAA) is private and not governed by any state or federal law. Lance M. Werner, A Few Words About Public Libraries and MPAA Ratings (Library of Michigan, 2020), https://www.michigan.gov/libraryofmichigan/0,9327,7-381-88855_89735_89755-384678–,00.html. Moreover the MPAA’s ratings are generally not legally binding. Id. (discussing that library staff cannot enforce MPAA ratings absent a parallel legal requirement to do so (citing Hanselman v Kileen, 419 Mich 168, 351 NW2d 544 (1984)), e.g., enforcing obscenity laws (e.g. Mich. comp. l. § 752.361-752.374) that prohibit minors from viewing literature or films deemed to be obscene). Apart from following the law, theaters are under no legal obligation to follow the MPAA (Werner, supra). Yet even when there is no legal requirement for a theater to enforce age discrimination under the MPAA’s ratings, still, such discrimination is not unlawful. Cheeseman v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 310 N.W.2d 408, 415 (1981) (“theatres . . . are permitted by law to distinguish between adults and children for purposes of admission”).
23. Gen. 5:2; see also Handbook of evolution (2) (eds. Franz M. Wuketits and Francisco J. Ayala) 38 (Wiley-VCH, 2005) (stating that female become pregnant and males do not); Larry L. Mai, et al., The Cambridge dictionary of human biology and evolution 483 (2005) (defining sexual dimorphism as “[the] existence of two different forms . . . between male and female of a sexually reproducing species” (emphasis added); id. (defining sexual division of labor as “[the] division of tasks based on sex; for example, in human hunter–gatherer societies males contribute game to the diet, whereas females contribute vegetable matter” (emphasis added)); id. (defining sexual inheritance as “[the] inheritance of traits by one organism from another . . . by means of the haploid male and female gametes” (emphasis added)); Jonathan C.K. Wells, The evolutionary biology of human body fatness 27 (Cambridge University Press, 2010) (contrasting human fatness between males and females); Protocols in human molecular genetics: Methods in molecular biology (9, ed. Christopher G. Mathew) 305 (Humana Press, 1991) (contrasting x chromosome deletion with y chromosome deletion); DNA and RNA Profiling in Human Blood: Methods and Protocols (ed. Peter Bugert) 153 (Humana Press, 2009) (describing predictions arising by a fetus being male (as opposed to being female)); Alan F. Dixson, Sexual selection and the origins of human mating systems 5 (Oxford University Press, 2009) (describing the intra-sexual selection of males by females); The changing face of disease (ed. Mascie-Taylor, et al.), 48 Society for the Study of Human Biology Series 32 (Taylor & Francis Inc., 2004) (contrasting the respective gonadal functions of males and females); Richard J. Epstein, Human molecular biology an introduction to the molecular basis of health and disease 63 (Cambridge University Press, 2003) (contrasting the somatic cells of males and females respectively); Sandy B. Primrose and Richard M. Twyman, Genomics: applications in human biology 115 (Blackwell Publishing, 2004) (contrasting the Genetic predisposition for breast cancer for males and females respectively); Raven Johnson, Biology 268 (McGraw Hill 6th ed., 2002) (describing that males and females have genetic equality in their autosomes and inequality in their sex chromosomes); Evolution of communicative flexibility: Complexity, creativity, and adaptability in human and animal communication (eds. Ulrike Griebel and D. Kimbrough Oller) 20 (MIT Press, 2008) (describing intrasexual and intersexual selection between males and females).
24. 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).
25. Id. at 1754 (“An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”).
26. Alexis C. Madrigal, How politicians and scholars turned against big tech (The Atlantic, 2019) (“conservatives criticized the platforms during [President Trump’s 2016] campaign and have continued to do so throughout the past two and a half years”), https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/06/how-politicians-and-scholars-turned-against-big-tech/591052/; Shira Ovide, Big tech’s backlash is just starting (New York Times, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/technology/big-tech-backlash.html; Fox News, Tired of Facebook? Here are five social networking alternatives (2012) (“new and arguably more innovative social networking alternatives [than Facebook] have emerged in recent years”), https://www.foxnews.com/tech/tired-of-facebook-here-are-five-social-networking-alternatives.
27. Brian X. Chen, How to Fight Against Big Tech’s Power (New York Times, 2020) (“[w]e would do ourselves and smaller businesses a favor by staying informed on alternatives”), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/29/technology/personaltech/big-tech-power-how-to-fight.html; Cristiano Lima, Cruz joins alternative social media site Parler in swipe at big tech platforms (Politico, 2020) (“Cruz rails against industry giants for flagrantly silencing those with whom they disagree, from conservative media organizations to the president of the United States — and millions of Americans in between” (quotation marks omitted)), https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/25/ted-cruz-joins-parler-339811.
28. See, e.g., a satirical take by The Onion News which jokingly “reported” that Facebook plans to break up U.S. government—instead of the other way around. Facebook announces plan to break up U.S. government before it becomes too powerful (2020), https://www.theonion.com/facebook-announces-plan-to-break-up-u-s-government-bef-1844121902.
29. David Ingram, Break up Big Tech? With congressional probe, the idea may be gaining steam (NBC, 2020) (“[b]eyond the theatrics, the high-profile hearing [in Congress] could end up having real consequences for the world’s biggest technology companies”).
30. Steve Forbes, Big Tech break up: What will it really fix? (Forbes, 2020), https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2020/06/18/big-tech-break-up-what-will-it-really-fix/#470bf6f85e09; Evgeny Morozov, It’s not enough to break up Big Tech. We need to imagine a better alternative (The Guardian, 2019), https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/11/big-tech-progressive-vision-silicon-valley.
31. See generally Jeffrey Dorfman, Ten free market economic reasons to be thankful (Forbes, 2016), https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2016/11/23/ten-free-market-economic-reasons-to-be-thankful/#18e8c3e46db7.
32. E.g. Abby Ohlheiser and Ian Shapira, Gab, the white supremacist sanctuary linked to the Pittsburgh suspect, goes offline (for now) (Washington Post, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/28/how-gab-became-white-supremacist-sanctuary-before-it-was-linked-pittsburgh-suspect/.
33. Andrew Torba, Twitter to censor Trump’s “abusive” tweets (Gab.com, 2019), https://news.gab.com/2019/10/16/twitter-to-censor-trumps-abusive-tweets/ .
34. John Herrman, We’re stuck with the tech giants. But they’re stuck with each other. (New York Times, 2019) (“When you hit play on a Spotify song, something happens on servers owned by Google, a privilege and action for which Spotify pays a fee.”), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/13/magazine/internet-platform.html.
35. Eccl. 3:1
36. Ex. 20:17.
37. Gen. 1:28.
38. Id. 1:27.
39. Cf. Rom. 13:1-2 (“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”).
40. See Rom. 1:28.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s