We are living through a time when some are trying to censor the speech of others. This is happening both through government and private individuals and businesses.
When Neil Young called for Spotify to remove Joe Rogan’s content or else to remove his, this is a private individual acting voluntarily as far as we know. He simply didn’t like some of the things that were being said on Rogan’s programs, or maybe Young just didn’t like what others were saying what was being said on Rogan’s programs. My guess is that he didn’t listen to more than a few minutes of a Rogan episode.
In many cases, there is a blurred line between private individuals and companies and government. This is particularly true when it comes to large companies. When Congress calls the CEOs of major social media companies to testify, and then we see these companies censoring certain people, is this really just market action?
The government may not be explicitly threatening these companies to ban certain speech, but there is an implicit threat that these companies could find trouble in the form of investigations, tax audits, and future regulations if they don’t “behave” correctly and ban what is deemed unacceptable speech.
It’s sad that people have to be reminded of this, but the point of free speech is that unpopular speech be allowed. In this case, it is unpopular speech for the establishment.
I can’t remember a time when I have seen this hardcore push for censorship. There was definitely a lot of sensitivity after 9/11, and there is the example of Bill Maher getting in trouble for saying the terrorists weren’t cowards.
However, after 9/11, if someone went against the establishment narrative, it was more common to see the person ignored or attacked. There usually weren’t calls for censorship. This was also true in the lead up to the war in Iraq in 2002 and 2003.
It’s important to acknowledge that part of the reason for this increased call for censorship is because there is more speech to be censored. Before the internet became widespread, most people got their news from one of three or four major networks and maybe a newspaper. The only major place with somewhat alternative views was conservative talk radio, but even much of this still followed the establishment line on the major issues.
Now we have podcasts, blogs, social media, videos, and millions of websites that offer alternative viewpoints. This is why there is so much call for censorship. It’s because the power elite are having trouble controlling the narrative.
It’s also important to acknowledge that this isn’t the first time free speech has been under major attack. In fact, it was much worse in previous times, even in the United States.
The ink was barely dry on the Bill of Rights when the Alien and Sedition Acts were imposed, which basically prohibited people from criticizing the government. There were also periods of major tyranny and bans of speech during war, most notably during the so-called Civil War and World War I.
Why Not Debate?
Whenever there have been calls for censoring speech, it almost always means that the person or group has bad motives, whether it is coming from a government or a company or an individual. They are purposely trying to shut others up because they don’t like what they have to say, and they don’t want to engage in any debate.
It is never my instinct to want to censor somebody when they are saying something I don’t like. I may want them to shut up and go away, but I don’t want to stop them from speaking. I certainly don’t want the government to take any action.
Perhaps it gets a little tricky when dealing with companies providing a platform. I am understanding to a point of not wanting to allow people speaking who are doing so for the reason of purposely degrading others.
If we look at Joe Rogan, he wasn’t purposely trying to degrade others or spread hate. He interviews people with different viewpoints. Sometimes he’ll have a guest on one week who contradicts what another guest said the previous week. He is trying to get different viewpoints out there while making it interesting and entertaining.
Why doesn’t Neil Young address specifically what he thinks is “misinformation”? Why doesn’t he go on Rogan’s show and speak about where he thinks some of the doctors on Rogan’s show got it wrong? I think Rogan would probably have Young on his show. Even before Young’s ultimatum to Spotify, Rogan may have had him on the show.
When it comes to corporations, I think sometimes they are just trying to minimize the headaches. That is why the default position is to follow the establishment narrative. This also tends to be a leftist narrative, as the left is far more destructive in its protests.
But there are many people and many companies who go out of their way to try to censor others on other platforms. They would rather censor than debate. It’s because they know they are incapable of debating well. It is easier to shut the other side up.
When you look at COVID and the vaccines, there are some major figures who have arisen who oppose the hysteria and the vaccine mandates. Some of them even question the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccines. The COVID hysterics are trying to get these people censored. Yet, most of these people would be more than happy to debate Joe Biden or Dr. Fauci or Bill Gates or the CEO of Pfizer or any high-profile COVID hysteric and vaccine pusher. In fact, they would probably debate someone who is only somewhat prominent.
But these debates don’t happen because the COVID hysterics and vaccine pushers (the tyrants) don’t want to debate. They will have to deal with facts and arguments, which they can’t. They will have to deal with explaining the irrationality of the lockdowns and the vaccine mandates.
Sanjay Gupta of CNN went on Rogan’s show, and he had to deal with questions that he wasn’t accustomed to. He couldn’t defend CNN’s trashing of Rogan over taking Ivermectin, which the establishment referred to as horse paste.
Could you imagine Dr. Peter McCullough or Dr. Robert Malone debating someone like Fauci? Imagine some of these challenging questions.
“The CDC admitted that the COVID vaccines don’t stop transmission, so why are there vaccine mandates if they don’t stop the spread?”
“Dr. Fauci, you said in 2020 that PCR tests run at 35 cycles or higher are not reliable because they produce false positives. So why, from near the beginning, was the FDA recommending to run the PCR tests up to 40 cycles or more?”
“Why did the FDA authorize the Pfizer vaccine when more people in the trial died in the vaccinated group than the non vaccinated group?”
“Why did the FDA and CDC count anyone as a COVID death if they died within 4 weeks of testing positive, even if COVID wasn’t the reason for their death? How many people would die of the common cold each year if we counted it the same way?”
“Why did the FDA claim that 98% of hospitalizations were non vaccinated people using data going back to January 2021 when most people were not fully vaccinated at that time? And why do we not get any current statistics on the percentage of vaccinated hospitalizations?”
“In 2021, why did the FDA change its guidelines that they would only count someone who is vaccinated as having COVID if the test is run at 28 cycle or less while not having the same standard for those who aren’t vaccinated?”
Imagine a three-hour debate with these kinds of questions. I’m sure someone like Fauci would have some weasel words to answer the questions (or avoid the questions), but it would severely expose him. Most people don’t even know the facts presented within the questions. It would be a devastating blow to the COVID narrative.
Now imagine a three-hour debate or interview with Neil Young (or some other celebrity) being challenged with some of these things. He would be tripping all over himself. He would walk away with his head down in shame.
The reason most people are trying to censor others and calling it “misinformation” is because they are afraid of others hearing what is being said. They are afraid of the truth getting out there. They are afraid the agenda might be exposed for what it really is.
Even for people who truly believe the lies, they want to stick their head in the sand and don’t want alternative viewpoints. They have no curiosity, and they have no desire to hear anything outside of what they already “know” to be true.
Whenever someone’s primary tactic is censorship instead of actually debating or trying to refute what was said, it should immediately make you suspicious of the person’s motives.
This isn’t true 100% of the time, but when someone is trying to censor someone else, it is usually the person being censored who is closer to the truth.