The Dems' censorship epidemic

 Clarice Feldman:

Democrats in Congress and their legacy media enablers dropped their veils this week, revealing how dear they hold their desire and capacity to censor truth. The drop came during Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s testimony about vaccines and shows how frightened they are that he may out-primary their demented puppet Joe Biden and his cackling numbskull veep.

The New York Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg tweeted:

“Despite the theater, the hearing raised thorny questions about free speech in a democratic society: Is misinformation protected by the First Amendment. When is it appropriate for the federal government to seek to tamp down the spread of falsehoods?”

Her comment was apparently inspired by Rep. Deborah Wasserman Schultz, who sought to hide his testimony from the public by moving it to executive session. When that failed, she and other Democrats on the committee peppered him with questions and denied him an opportunity to respond. Ranking Democrat Stacey Plaskett, in the context of an investigation of the censorship by the FBI and other agencies, said in her opening statement “I hope that [all members] recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally protected,” referencing "hate speech." Her views, wrong as they are, echo similar censorship fan Senator Ben Cardin. 

Professor Jonathan Turley took strong issue with this distortion of the First Amendment. Surveys show that college students are especially indoctrinated to believe the Schultz-Plaskett-Stolberg fallacy about the limits on free speech. (Students surveyed indicate it should be a criminal offense to misgender someone.)  You might want to read his very sound rebuttal. Misinformation is protected, “simply stating something that others view as misleading or wrong [ed: or offensive to the listener] is protected under the First Amendment.”

That Amendment makes no distinction between different types of speech:

“Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech.”

“[I]t  is unconstitutional to criminalize lies.”

The idea that you can permit the government to decide true from false statements will always be selectively enforced to protect the interests of the officeholders.

“What is so troubling,” he concludes, “is how the ‘legacy media’ has jettisoned the most noble aspects of its legacy and has become the enabler of censors.”

Censorship, whether it is direct or indirect through threats to social media (enjoined by Judge Terry A. Doughty in Missouri v. Biden a few weeks ago) is a danger to us. We saw how the serious concerns about the COVID vaccine by reputable scientists were blocked from public view; how bad medical treatment (use of ventilators for COVID victims) and denial of alternative therapies cost lives; how exaggeration of COVID mortality locked down schools, businesses, and place of worship, magnifying terror in those who misunderstood the degree of risk. Indeed, the overblown coverage paved the way for overriding sensible election integrity laws and surely enabled fraud.

...

There is more.

Democrats appear to be the leaders of the attempt to censor those with whom they disagree. Judge Doughty is right about the issue and the Supreme Court needs to support his decision.  It is OK to disagree with what others say without telling them to shut up.

See, also:

The scariest poll you'll see this summer

And it's not about Joe Biden

A majority of Americans - and an overwhelming number of Democrats - no longer support First Amendment protections for free speech.
...