CNN and Mainstream Media Champion Censorship

The Following Article is an Opinion Piece. This article respresents his views and not that of The Anonymous Publishing House. Free speech as well as freedom of expression and opinion are a fundimental and natural right for all. Censorship will only ever silence the truth and in the persuit of free speech there may be times where you read words objectionable to you and your beliefs. Either contest and debate the opinions expressed, or skip to the next article/video.

We might not agree with the words written below, but we will fight til our last breath for the authors rights to say them.

CNN Just Plain Sucks

Being a champion of free speech, I've got to say, these past few years have been pretty alarming and downright depressing. The government's been trying to censor stuff for ages, but what's really got me shaking my head is how the media and the Democratic Party have jumped on board the censorship train. It was on full display when they found out the Biden Administration violated the First Amendment in what they're calling "the most massive attack against free speech in United States history." The New York Times wasted no time warning that this outbreak of free speech might mess up their fight against fake news. But the real kicker came from CNN's Chief White House Correspondent, Phil Mattingly. He casually said it "makes sense" for tech companies to bow down to the government's censorship demands.

Mattingly spilled the beans that social media platforms usually give in to the Biden administration's censorship requests. But get this, he actually thinks it's a good thing! He believes it's the right move for public health. According to him, the Biden administration would reach out to Twitter and Facebook, crying about people spreading vaccine lies and misinformation that's not only undermining their COVID efforts but also public health. And guess what? The companies usually respond with a "sure thing." It's like they're the government's little censorship lapdogs.

What's really concerning here is not just the blind acceptance that the government should be protecting us from dangerous thoughts. It's the fact that the government got so many things wrong while they were busy banning and blacklisting experts who dared to question them.

Twitter and other platforms had a field day censoring people who had the audacity to challenge the official mask narrative. The Centers for Disease and Control Prevention (CDC) initially said masks weren't necessary, but then they flip-flopped like a fish out of water and decided everyone should wear them, even little kids. And now, surprise surprise, we're seeing emotional and developmental issues in children thanks to all these pandemic measures.

Some brave souls dared to question the need to close schools and businesses, and they were promptly shut down too. But guess what? Turns out they may have been right. Many countries didn't close schools and didn't see a massive spike in COVID cases. But now we're witnessing a decline in test scores and a rise in medical issues among young people. So maybe those critics weren't so crazy after all.

Masks became a ridiculous political battleground. People without masks were treated like pariahs and even got kicked out of stores. The CDC Director at the time, Dr. Robert Redfield, went all in and declared that masks were the ultimate health weapon. Well, guess what the studies are saying now? They're saying that widespread masking may not have done squat to stop the spread of COVID. Yeah, you heard me right. All that mask-wearing might not have made a lick of difference.

I'm sure there will be debates about these studies for ages, but the point is that there were legitimate reasons to question the mandates. Yet, thanks to the censorship supported by the Democrats and their social media pals, there was no room for debate. If you dared to question the mandates, you were labeled a public health threat.

Even the head of the World Health Organization got in on the censorship game. He thought silencing people was the way to combat what he called an "infodemic." Seriously, an infodemic? Is that like a pandemic of information?

Scientists who dared to raise concerns or question the mainstream narrative were treated like outcasts. Remember Dr. Clare Craig? She got suspended for raising concerns about Pfizer trial documents. And then there were those doctors who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, advocating for a more targeted COVID response. They were attacked left and right. But guess what? People are now questioning the effectiveness and cost of the massive lockdowns, the value of masks, and even the dismissal of natural immunity as an alternative to vaccination. It's like the experts were afraid of asking tough questions.

The media has quietly admitted that there's science out there questioning mask efficacy and school closures. But they conveniently forget their own role in attacking those who raised those concerns. They even labeled the lab theory on the origin of COVID as a conspiracy theory. And get this, one New York Times reporter even called it racist. Yeah, because apparently viruses have feelings too.

Now we've got folks like Mattingly defending censorship by saying that the government should censor ideas because some ideas need to be censored. Talk about a circular argument. Governments have always claimed that they're censoring stuff for our own good, defining certain views as harmful or false. But now, even major media figures are shrugging off free speech concerns and supporting censorship as a "harm reduction model." They used to be all about free speech, but now they're singing a different tune. Apparently, obeying the government and its speech rules is the way to go. It's all about protection, right? Censorship just "makes sense."

Well, it doesn't make sense to me, and it shouldn't make sense to anyone who values free speech.

Jesse

For media inquiries, please contact:

UK - 020 3404 2295

USA - 0650 278 4440

AUS - 02 9072 9499

info@anonymouspubishinghouse.com