A Pew Research ballot launched Thursday discovered that 70% of Democrats assume the federal government ought to limit what seems on social media, a dramatic change from 5 years in the past, when a majority of Democrats supported a free market of concepts.
Democrats are turning into the Censorship Party.
It’s no marvel, contemplating the drumbeat of warnings from leftist politicians and their liberal media allies about “disinformation” and “misinformation.”
But be warned: Democracy can not survive for lengthy if one of many nation’s two main political events needs to place blinders on the general public, limiting entry to data and canceling political opponents.
That’s a rigged system. Ask the Iranians, Russians or Chinese.
A listening to Thursday of the House Weaponization of the Federal Government Subcommittee confirmed the Biden administration is already censoring social media on a large scale, placing blinders on us all.
Hearing witness D. John Sauer, Louisiana particular assistant lawyer normal, described a federal choose’s preliminary findings that Biden employees within the White House, the FBI, the Department of Health and Human Services and nearly each different govt division meet often with social-media executives and stress them to take away or demote criticisms of Biden financial and vitality insurance policies, Biden members of the family and even gadgets that depict the First Lady in an unflattering manner.
“Millions of American voices have been silenced” in violation of the First Amendment, Sauer stated.
He cited some 18,000 communications from Team Biden to tech executives orchestrating an enormous ongoing censorship operation.
Yet Democratic lawmakers had been unfazed by this surprising proof, and hardly questioned the witness. The US Constitution and the way forward for our democracy be damned.
Rep. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands) laid out the Democratic Party’s distorted interpretation of the First Amendment, insisting that not all speech is constitutionally protected and providing hate speech for instance.
Plaskett and likeminded Dems want a refresher course on the Constitution and American historical past.
The US Supreme Court has dominated many times that each one speech, particularly speech we just like the least, is protected.
That consists of Nazi marches and cross burnings, as odious as these are.
Who wants a constitutional modification to guard speech everybody likes?
In 2017, the Court dominated unanimously in Matal v. Tam that the First Amendment requires “we defend the liberty to precise ‘the thought that we hate.’”
Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) aimed his wrath at witness Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose views on vaccines and different pandemic insurance policies had been censored.
Connolly stated this censorship “was not Big Brother authorities making an attempt to train its will on an harmless inhabitants. It was public-health measures to guard lives.”
Connolly’s unsuitable. Censoring scientific debate was a deadly mistake.
If competing scientific viewpoints, particularly about masking and lockdowns, had been thought of, hurt to schoolchildren, enterprise homeowners and lots of others may need been prevented.
Turns out official authorities coverage was based mostly on “misinformation” and “disinformation.”
During the listening to, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) battered Kennedy with accusations of antisemitism and racism for his outrageous feedback in regards to the disparate influence of COVID on completely different ethnic teams.
But when he tried to reply, she barked, “Reclaiming my time” and, “Ask the witness to cease speaking.”
Whether you assume RFK Jr. is loony or a viable presidential contender, as a witness he ought to have been handled with civility.
Wasserman Schultz’s abuse is harking back to how Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s browbeat witnesses in the course of the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954.
Those hearings ended abruptly when McCarthy was requested, “Have you no sense of decency?”
Wasserman Schultz ought to have been confronted with the identical query.
The assaults on RFK Jr. had been a sideshow. The essential occasion was the Democrats’ concocted protection of censorship.
The Democrats’ personal witness — New York civil-rights lawyer Maya Wiley — testified, “The means of each individual to have entry to correct and dependable data is a cornerstone of our democracy.”
Wiley’s slippery language is supposed to evade the actual challenge: Who decides what’s correct and dependable?
Wiley was requested straight: “Do you belief the federal government to find out which info and views the American individuals are uncovered to?”
She replied, “I’m scuffling with the query.”
Tell Democrats the reply is a powerful “No.”
Trusting authorities to be your eyes and ears is loopy.
Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York.