By J. D. Heyes
As loudly as the establishment press complains when POTUS Donald Trump criticizes them and as adamant as they all are that they are the protectors of our republic, it is sickening to see how many so-called journalists are all-in with censoring those with whom they disagree.
Our founding fathers were convinced that the only way to maintain a long-standing, functional, democratic republic was to ensure that America always had a truly free press. They were so convinced, in fact, that they enshrined protection of the press within the First Amendment.
But today, outlets like CBS and social media behemoths like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube are run by authoritarian Leftists who believe in shutting down any rival media that rises to challenge their political, cultural, or societal orthodoxies.
Under the bogus rubric of “combating disinformation” and “fake news” — which, in the age of Trump has become a major problem for the establishment media — CBS News aired a segment featuring a New York Times reporter in recent days who suggested an end-run around the Constitution to implement New Zealand-style censorship with oppressive “regulations” to suppress “hate speech” and “misinformation” online.
And, of course, government Leftists, with mainstream media assistance, would be empowered to decide what is and is not “hate speech” and “misinformation.”
As reported by Information Liberation:
Both the CBS News host and NYT reporter Cecilia Kang said the U.S. should look to countries like Australia, New Zealand, Germany and India — which do not have free speech — as models for suppressing free speech on the internet.
Just look at how these authoritarian wannabes dance around what they really want to say, which is, “We want to censor people and information we don’t like”:
CBS News suggests we might want to look to the UK and Australia for speech laws. pic.twitter.com/apMxvtW5xm
— zyntrax (@zyntrax) April 29, 2019
As Information Liberation’s Chris Menahan noted earlier this year, The New York Times published an ‘opinion’ piece which advocates Cuba- or China-style censorship to stamp out “toxic ideas.” In August, the Times hired Libtard racist Sara Jeong to write for them and be on the paper’s editorial board. Within a few months, Internet sleuths dug up some of her tweets from 2014 in which she spewed the exact same kind of hatred her paper claims to want to suppress.
“Dumba** f**king white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,” she tweeted in November of that year. In July 2014, she wrote, “oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.”
‘Kind of’ sick? Only people who truly have hatred in their hearts and souls would even think such things, let alone write them. But then again, that’s exactly the kind of speech the First Amendment is supposed to protect; you don’t have to like everything everyone says, but per our Constitution, we have to let them say it.
At least, that’s the way conservatives feel; the Left, not so much. They are the ones into censorship, shadow banning and legal intervention to keep people from speaking and writing things they disagree with.
Even the Times said it felt that way. Menahan noted that the paper’s editors were aware of Jeong’s nasty tweets before she was hired, but that they were justified because someone called her mean names online.
But weren’t her texts “hate speech?” Didn’t they qualify as such under the Left’s own definition? Or, more correctly, doesn’t the Left assume they can decide what is and isn’t ‘improper’ speech?
“While journos love to act as though they’re crusaders for free speech and a free press, as we saw over the weekend during the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, they’re actually the biggest crusaders against free speech and the free press in America and throughout the West,” Menahan wrote.
No question about it.
Our founders never imagined that American journalists would become the biggest champions of censorship and one-party rule.
A version of this story first appeared at NewsTarget.