An essay on control

Censorship is Free Speech?

by Miles Mathis

June 29, 2026

It's just Newspeak, isn't it? War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Censorship is Free Speech.

Doubleplusungood.

Nothing could be clearer evidence of how corrupt and Orwellian the world has become than this argument at calawyers.org that censorship is protected free speech. The argument from these "attorneys" is that Google and other search engines are private companies acting as media enterprises, therefore the free speech and free press clauses of the Constitution can be read as protecting their right to be as biassed in their listings as they like, since the Constitution has no guarantee of fairness and these entities "have not waived their right to selectively list however they like".

No, they actually say that. They want you to believe that search results are "editorial judgment", like you would see on an editorial page in a newspaper. They keep saying that a search engine is an "internet speaker", to tie it to free speech, but a search engine is not an internet speaker. It is a search engine, which everyone knows is not a person or a speaker or a newspaper that has Constitutional rights to lie, distort, and censor.

As search engines, these entities are NOT acting like the press or media, they are acting as official government gatekeepers and arms of the federal government. Google has been a government front from the start, funded in the dark by various CIA and military backchannels, like everything else. Remember, Google came out of Mountain View, spawned by military via Shockley and Fairchild. But they have always wanted you to think these big companies were private, founded by college kids out of their basements, just so that they could later dodge these censorship charges. They then hire these corrupt attorneys to come up with these oily arguments, where quashing freedom of speech is protected by the free speech clause of the Constitution. A topsy-turvy world.

They say,

The government may not tell the Hufngton Post or the Drudge Report how to rank the news stories or opinion articles to which they link. Likewise, it may not do so for other speakers, such as search engines.

An obvious dodge, since a search engine is not a media outlet or speaker. It is a different entity altogether and everyone knows that. These attorneys want you to think the government cannot tell Google what to do, but who do you think is telling Google to censor people like me? The government! And not just Google of course. Facebook/Meta/Zuckerberg have now admitted the government was ordering it to censor wide swaths of information, which was always a given since Facebook is a government front, funded by DARPA and similar entities. The mainstream, including places like Wikipedia, now admit that. The same goes for Google, Twitter, Yahoo, Bing, Youtube, and I assume all other major outlets. X admitted it after Covid, remember? That is what the whole Musk brouhaha was about, where he allegedly fired all the government moles censoring the site. So we now know the government is ordering not just search engines but media outlets as well. Which means the "argument" of these fake attorneys just exploded in their faces. No matter what either side in some court case has argued, or what the courts have allegedly found, the government IS controlling both the search engines and the media, and has been doing it for decades or centuries. It is also controlling the courts, which just makes the joke bigger here. The only difference is that it has completely come out in the open in the past few years, everything going transparent. Which makes it all the more icky to see these attorneys saying this. They have clearly been ordered to try to justify this tyranny after the fact, by treating their audience as a bunch of retarded children, but that is just throwing gasoline on the fire. No one capable of reading the English language will read this and be fooled into thinking censorship is protected speech.

It would be like the tobacco companies trying to hide behind the free speech clause, claiming that when they said smoking didn't cause cancer, they were exercising their right to report certain experiments run by their corrupt in-house scientists and ignore all others; and besides they never waived their right report whatever they liked however they liked.

It would be like Pfizer or Fauci trying to hide behind the free speech clause, when they told you the vaccines were safe and effective, and that they prevented infection. According to this current argument, because Pfizer is a private company, it can say whatever it wants, since there is no Constitutional guarantee of truth or accuracy, and it has has not waived its right to advertise in whatever way it see fit to do so.

But just any sane person knows there is a universal expectation that Pfizer and Fauci and Philip Morris not lie, there is a universal expectation that search engines will run unbiassed searches, not that they tell you only what they want you to hear, hiding everything else. Which is why for many years they did. Or better than now, at any rate. That is because people do not think of search engines like they think of the National Enquirer. Because the ties to government are known, people do expect fairness, accuracy, oversight, and a strict avoidance of censorship.

That is why the first iteration of search engines was based on real numbers: visits, hits, keywords, and so on. And that is why the search engines are generally hiding the fact they have moved on to a second iteration based on censorship, suppression, and propaganda. If this is all above board and Constitutional, then why are the search engines and the government and the oily lying attorneys hiding the switch? Why not lead all searches with the proud claim they have completely updated the method, boosting all government approved information and deleting the rest for your own good? We all know why: that would be admitting that 1984 is here. That would be admitting we now have a Chinese-style internet, or worse. Say it with me: CHI-NAH.

And why do they call that a Chinese-style internet? Because the internet in China has long been run by the state, jettisoning all non-approved content and opinion. The difference being that China has no Constitution, no free speech guarantees, and no pretense otherwise. People over there are aware everything they read and see is state propaganda. But here, where our rulers want the same thing, they had to do an end-run around the Constitution and the First Amendment, turning it on its head to protect the huge government fronts like Google doing the censorship. The Constitution was written to protect the powerless from the powerful, the little guy from the King and other big guys, but that has been flipped: it is now quoted by these weaselly lawyers to protect the government and huge corporations from truly private individuals like me. It is being used to protect liars from the truth. It is being used to protect scientists who can't do science from scientists who can do science. It is being used to protect artists who can't create art from those who can. It is being used to protect writers who can't write and poets who can't write against those who can. It is being use to protect debaters who can't debate (except by lying) from debaters who can debate.

Then they say,

The "point" of the rule that speakers may choose what to include and what to exclude "is simply the point of all speech protection, which is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful." Hurley, 515 U.S. at 574.

Again, you have to laugh. Google paid for it, but that doesn't mean Google paid for it. These hired attorneys just accidentally argue Google is innocent of censorship. So lucky of Google to hire attorneys who agreed with it!

Please go to Updates to continue reading this essay.