It’s not against the law to be stupid.

Odd way to begin an article/op-ed about the pervasiveness of politically-predisposed censorship on Jack Dorsey’s Twitter, Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook, and on a stealthier but just as insidious basis, Sundar Pichai’s Google, among other social media platforms.

Not at all.

Now that we’ve settled that, let’s cut to the bottom line:

If you’re (third-person, of course) stupid enough to believe everything you read or see on the Internet, you’re stupid enough to suffer the consequences of having read or seen it.

While I fully understand that the stupid actions — or inactions — of stupid people can affect other people — smart, stupid, or somewhere in the middle — so what? Meaning, are we not also affected on a daily basis by the actions or inactions of people who are not stupid, yet make stupid or at the very least unwise decisions? Of course we are. Guess what? It’s called “life.” It’s why the bumper sticker “stuff happens,” or something like that exists.

Seems to me, it all works out. To beat a thoroughly beaten and thoroughly dead horse, it is what it is. Besides, and here’s the real question — perhaps the most critical question of all, as we look ahead to future presidential elections, and even more important issues:

Why is it the job of Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and other left-wing Big Tech gurus to decide what Americans see or don’t see?

And here’s an even more important question: As long as the content is legal?

Twitter’s censorship crusade against President Donald Trump and his campaign pressed on this week. …https://t.co/lQlYqjTjNT

— Free Speech America (@FreeSpeechAmer) December 22, 2020

Why have Twitter, Facebook, Google, Instagram, Navigator, and others, been ordained Guardians of the Universe — particularly given their predisposed political bias?

That is where the battle is joined.

From the White House to Congress to social media and everywhere in between, that’s the debate. Who died and left Big Tech in charge of deciding which legal material Americans can access and which, they cannot.

Justice Minister Ziobro of Poland “announced a legal initiative on [Dec. 10] aimed at enabling internet users to file complaints against the removal of online posts as well as the creation of a special court for freedom of speech,” according to Poland In.https://t.co/5GRMsmCFrg

— Free Speech America (@FreeSpeechAmer) December 22, 2020

As reported by PolandIN.com, while the Big Tech battle continues to rage in the U.S., the conservative government in Poland has enacted a new law to hold companies accountable for what now will be illegal censorship or suppression of legal content.

If there is no violation of Polish law, social media companies cannot remove content or block accounts, according to the draft of the “Act for the Freedom to Express One’s Views and Obtain and Disseminate Information on the Internet.”

Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro of Poland “announced the legal initiative earlier this month aimed at enabling internet users to file complaints against the removal of online posts as well as the creation of a special court for freedom of speech,” according to Poland In.

“Under its provisions, social media services will not be allowed to remove content or block accounts if the content on them does not break Polish law.

“In the event of removal or blockage, a complaint can be sent to the platform, which will have 24 hours to consider it.

“Within 48 hours of the decision, the user will be able to file a petition to the court for the return of access. The court will consider complaints within seven days of receipt and the entire process is to be electronic.”

Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sundar Pichai were unavailable for comments. [sarc]

Sebastian Kaleta, secretary of state in the Ministry of Justice, noted that the new legislation is “supposed to protect against excessive interference of the moderators of this content.”

“The draft law that we have prepared meets various disturbing signals, and on the other hand, guarantees the possibility of expressing your opinions, as long as they do not violate the law.

“A balance must be found between the exercise of freedom and the abuse thereof. Today in Europe, censorship solutions are sought rather than to protect freedom of speech.”

And Ziobor nailed it.

“Often, the victims of tendencies for ideological censorship are also representatives of various groups operating in Poland, whose content is removed or blocked, just because they express views and refer to values that are unacceptable from the point of view of communities… with an ever-stronger influence on the functioning of social media.”

If a “special court” rules in favor of the plaintiff and the internet service does not obey the ruling, it can be fined up to roughly $2.2 million (1.8 million EUR).

Seems to me, problem solved; or at least a major step in the right direction.