by Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor

As the token “radical Muslim” here at VT I have a certain license to express a point of view that is not 100% kosher certified by the editorial board. So I’m going to join the minority-of-one here, Robert David Steele, and say something nice about Donald Trump.

After mercilessly mocking and deriding Trump for almost four years, I am now shocked to find myself cheering for him. Well, not for him personally, but for two of his recent outrages: reopening houses of worship, and ordering an investigation (and hopefully a revocation) of the law granting social media companies immunity from lawsuits.

Trump is right: Houses of worship are essential, far more essential than liquor stores and abortion services, as every one of the Founding Fathers would surely agree if they could be with us today. What’s more, religious institutions ought to have vastly more power and autonomy than they currently enjoy. They should be a “check and balance” against the government, as they are in Iran. Check out the arguments expressed in my radio interviews:

Peter Simpson on Why Theocracy Is Better than Secular Liberalism

Peter Simpson and Blake Archer Williams on Theocracy & Iran

A government, any government, ordering all houses of worship shut down, is an abomination. Better the other way around.

Trump is even more right about the big social media companies.

This is a very simple issue. Internet companies were granted immunity from content-based lawsuits for one reason and one reason only: They promised to be 100% neutral platforms, NOT publishers.

An example of a neutral platform is the phone system. The phone company isn’t responsible for what people say on the phone, since the phone is just a platform for everyone to exercise their right of free speech. The internet just a fancier telephone connecting everybody to everybody. The phone company, and the internet companies, MUST NOT DISCRIMINATE IN ANY WAY FOR OR AGAINST PEOPLE WHO SPEAK THROUGH THEIR TECHNOLOGIES/PLATFORMS. THE COMPANIES MUST BE 100% CONTENT NEUTRAL. EVERYONE HAS EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHT TO BE HEARD AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT VIOLATE THE LAW.

As soon as an internet company favors one speaker over another in any way, shape, or form, whether by promotion or censorship or rigging an algorithm, that company has become a publisher. From that moment on, that company is just as responsible for everything it publishes as every other publisher. So the next time some lunatic commits an atrocious crime and live-streams it on Facebook, Zuckerberg and the malefactor share responsibility for the crime, and Zuck gets sued and loses everything he has. (Good riddance!)

If Trump succeeds in redefining FB, Twitter, etc. as publishers, they will face thousands of lawsuits and go out of business immediately. They will then quickly be replaced by social media companies that offer content-neutral platforms, giving everyone exactly the same right of free speech and promoting all messages equally based on content-neutral algorithms. (That’s how the internet operated until about 2016, and it worked fine…the only people who didn’t like it were the Zionists, oligarchs, and 9/11 perps—not mutually exclusive categories—whose crimes were being exposed.)

It would be better to burn down the whole damn country than tolerate the current level of internet censorship. The only thing that makes this hideously flawed place tolerable is what is left — rather, what WAS left until 2016 — of freedom of expression. Going back to a content-neutral internet is not just a good idea; like establishing houses of worship as co-equals with the government, it is an idea and a project that would, if necessary, be worth fighting and dying for.

Update: Text of Trump’s announcement of executive order to fight online censorship

The White House • May 28, 2020 BREAKING: President Trump signs order to fight online censorship Moments ago in the Oval Office, President Trump signed an Executive Order to fight online censorship by technology corporations, including social media platforms. Tech bias is a major issue facing our democracy. It challenges the free exchange of ideas and public debate that protects our civil liberties. Every citizen—liberal, conservative, or otherwise—has a right to be heard and treated fairly online. ???? WATCH: President Trump announces executive action to fight online censorship In the next few hours, you may hear a lot about this Executive Order. Leftwing media will claim it addresses a fake problem because tech bias doesn’t exist. Democrats in Congress will say the President is exceeding his authority. Some in the Beltway establishment will say the order doesn’t do that much in the first place. All of these are lies. Here are a few of the key actions in President Trump’s order: Makes it U.S. policy that platforms who selectively edit, censor, or are not acting in “good faith” with regards to content will not receive the liability protection included in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act Directs the Commerce Department to petition the FCC to make clarifying rules on Section 230 in line with U.S. policy Helps stop millions of taxpayer dollars from being wasted by federal agencies on advertising with biased social media platforms Ensures the Justice Department will review more than 16,000 complaints about politically motivated censorship that were collected by the White House in advance of a Social Media Summit held last year Mobilizes State Attorneys General—who have massive subpoena and consumer protection authorities—to ensure social media platforms are not engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices Acts as federal law and lists the many ways in which tech platforms act with bias against viewpoints they disagree with Massive corporations that treat millions of American citizens unfairly shouldn’t expect special privileges and protections under the law. With President Trump’s Executive Order today, our country is one step closer to having an honest, fair public debate. Read President Trump’s Executive Order on censorship here. MORE: 33 Examples of Twitter’s Anti-Conservative Bias