Written by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker),
One of the most disheartening aspects of our current era is the breakdown of communication within society. The Internet and social media were once thought to facilitate better understanding among individuals, but instead, they have become platforms where people, despite speaking the same language, interpret words in vastly different ways. With the recent arrest of former CNN commentator Don Lemon for allegedly violating the religious rights of worshipers in Minneapolis, Democrats and the mainstream media have come out in universal condemnation of Attorney General Pam Bondi, accusing her of infringing on Lemon’s First Amendment rights as a so-called “journalist.” They choose to overlook the fact that Lemon and others stormed a church, intimidated congregants, and caused emotional distress to those present, including children, who felt as though they were under attack. Lemon and his defenders continue to justify the organized disruption of a Christian service as a form of “protest,” referring to the intruders as “protesters.” However, for the victims of this intrusion, it felt more like an act of terrorism carried out by individuals intent on instilling fear in those gathered to worship.
When a society cannot agree on the distinction between “protest” and “terrorism,” it is a serious cause for concern. This dilemma has been evident in various incidents across Minneapolis, where Democrat officials have labeled federal agents carrying out lawful arrests as “terrorists” and “Nazis,” while portraying criminal illegal aliens as “victims.” Leftist agitators who obstruct law enforcement activities claim to be “legal observers” and “peaceful protesters.” When those in power describe criminal behavior as “legal” and “peaceful,” it undermines any shared respect for the law.
The issue of government censorship and attacks on free speech has been a topic of debate since the Obama administration. Obama was the first modern American president to actively combat what he termed “fake news,” “misinformation,” and “disinformation.” He pressured tech companies in Silicon Valley to monitor their social media platforms for inaccurate information, citing national security concerns. However, in a society where there is disagreement on fundamental distinctions such as “protest” versus “terrorism,” determining what constitutes “correct” or “incorrect” information becomes increasingly challenging. When those in authority dictate what is considered “true,” it leads to a monopoly of viewpoints that suppress dissent. True free speech requires a public space where all information, regardless of its veracity, can be openly debated.
The growing divide within society has even led to disagreements between Democrats and Republicans on the protection of free speech rights. Conservatives and other non-leftists have experienced censorship since the Obama era, with tech giants discreetly targeting conservative websites by removing advertisers and limiting their visibility on social media platforms. Search engines have also pushed conservative publications down in search results. This viewpoint discrimination has expanded in various forms, including banks closing accounts of conservative entities and web hosts refusing to support conservative websites. The censorship escalated further after the 2020 election, with Big Tech collaborating to silence voices questioning electoral integrity. The Biden administration furthered this agenda by working with social media companies to censor dissenting views on COVID policies under the guise of public health and national security concerns. The trend of censorship extended to scientific research and even discussions on topics like “global warming” and “transgenderism,” where any deviation from the accepted narrative was deemed politically incorrect.
For Republicans, conservatives, and other non-leftists, the collaboration between Democrats and Silicon Valley to censor information deemed “untrue” represents a severe assault on free speech rights. Ordinary Democrats, however, may not recognize this threat, often justifying censorship of conservative voices as necessary to combat “fake news” and harmful information. The troubling aspect is that while Democrats advocate for mass censorship, they portray themselves as victims of censorship in certain situations. When individuals seek to protect children from objectionable content or when the FCC reprimands public figures for spreading misinformation, Democrats frame these actions as violations of free speech. The prevailing double standard is evident in instances where prominent figures make inflammatory remarks without consequence, while ordinary individuals face censorship for expressing dissenting views.
As censorship of non-leftist voices persists, the powerful claim victimhood, while the marginalized are silenced. The societal divisions have led to a situation where we may speak the same language, but the meanings of our words have diverged.