For months, the big tech overlords have indulged in censorship to a degree unseen in American history. Mostly, they have feebly tried to justify their censorship under the guise of preventing the spread of so-called misinformation. Whatever that means.
However, more and more, they are censoring content that has absolutely nothing to do with possible misinformation but everything to do with protecting their preferred political ideology.
Case in point: Twitter and Facebook have taken it upon themselves to prevent the American public from its right to know that Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors has purchased multiple mansions over the past few years.
Why would Twitter and Facebook do such a thing?
According to the New York Post, the nation’s oldest newspaper, the answer is simple: “It’s too dangerous to let Americans read politically inconvenient but accurate reports, varied opinions, and come to a conclusion themselves. Best to tell us what to think.”
I bring up theNew York Post for a reason.
Earlier this week, the Post published a completely fact-based article about Khan-Cullors’ lavish home purchases.
Khan-Cullors, the self-described Marxist, has been increasing her real estate portfolio to the tune of $3.2 million over the past four years. Nothing in the article was misleading. Nothing in the article was untruthful. Nothing in the article was even mean-spirited. It was simply a fact-based account of Khan-Cullors’ four home purchases over the past four years.
Yet, Facebook and Twitter silenced the Post, again.
According to Facebook, “This content was removed for violating our privacy and personal information policy.”
Twitter defended its censorship of the Post article by claiming it “violated the Twitter Rules.” No further explanation needed.
Taken at face value, this is disturbing to say the least.
Regardless of the weaselly reasons given by Facebook and Twitter for banning the story, it sure does not line up with their past actions concerning the publication of home purchases by those in public life.
In fact, newspapers throughout the country constantly publish articles about celebrities or public officials who buy lavish homes. It is public information after all.
However, big tech has a soft spot for BLM and leftist political organizations in general. So, they feel that it is well within their rights to shield the American public from any information that might undermine these organizations and their affiliated causes.
That is not what we in America call freedom of speech. It is downright censorship. And it is extremely dangerous.
Why, you might ask? Well, the answer is simple. Censorship begets more censorship.
Take almost any historical example of a society that chooses the road of censorship over the road leading to freedom of speech. What do you get? Inevitably, more censorship.
In Nazi Germany, where censorship ruled the day, book burnings were commonplace. The media was a tool of the state, meant to mimic the party line. Nothing more, nothing less.
The same thing is occurring as we speak in China. And Venezuela. And North Korea.
Censorship is like a malignant tumor for a free and open society. Once in place, it metastasizes.
The only known cure censorship is more, not less, speech.
Chris Talgo (ctalgo@heartland.org) is senior editor at The Heartland Institute.