It’s not like we haven’t gotten used to it. “Used to it” being a euphemism, that is. How do freedom-loving, First Amendment-cherishing Americans ever get “used to” suppression or censorship of free speech? The suppression of opinion with which one disagrees — while abhorrent, not to mention antithetical to liberty — is one thing. Suppression or outright censorship of facts and/or news that ultimately proves to be factual is quite another.
As we first reported on Monday, James O’Keefe of Project Veritas this week dropped three devastating undercover videos — devasting to CNN, who buffoonishly sees itself as “The Most Trusted Name in News” — in which a CNN director bragged about how far the Democrat Party mouthpiece went to help deny Donald Trump a second term, at one point boasting that without CNN’s efforts, he wasn’t sure Trump would not have won.
The director, apparently attempting to impress the wired-woman with whom he was “dining,” also pontificated about how CNN tried to hype COVID and cheerlead for Black Lives Matter, those loveable Marists with an affinity for burning and destroying things every time an “injustice” has been inflicted on an “innocent” black man by a “racist” white person.
As we also reported on Thursday, The New York Post ran into a sticky wicket with Facebook “fact-checkers” (see: “oxymoronic”) and a subsequent block of the Post’s “abusive” story on Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Kahn Cullors’s real estate buying penchant, most recently a $1.4 million property — which includes two homes — in Topanga Canyon, California, near Malibu, in an area that’s 88 percent white and 1.4 percent black.
Just the facts, gang — nothing less, nothing more.
As my RedState colleague, Nick Arama noted, things began to get jiggy on Twitter shortly after the Post broke the story:
“There was the BLM blaming any criticism or questions surrounding Cullors on a tradition of “white supremacists.” Then Twitter also locked out the accounts of journalists Jason Whitlock and Curtis Scoon for sharing the basic report of Cullors’ purchase of the home.
“The two had just [only] posted that she’d bought a home in the Topanga Canyon area, they didn’t publish any personal information. Yet both their accounts were locked, Twitter claimed, for violating the rules against posting ‘private information.'”
And then the block by the self-proclaimed guardians of the Facebook universe.
As Nick noted, the Post was first to report on The Black Lives Matter co-founder’s real estate properties, with the link being subsequently grabbed by others, but Facebook continues to block the link.
On Friday morning, the New York Post editorial board published a scathing op-ed titled Social media again silences The Post for reporting the news, in which they not only shredded this most recent dust-up with Big Tech but also pointed to the fact that the Post was ultimately vindicated following its last two blockbuster scoops — both of which were damning to the left.
Once more unto the breach.
On Thursday, Facebook decided its users should not be able to share a New York Post article about the property buying habits of one of the founders of Black Lives Matter.
This is the third time we’ve tangled with social media giants in the past year. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, we published a column that suggested the virus could have leaked from a Chinese virology lab.
Facebook’s “fact checkers” decided this was an opinion you weren’t allowed to have, and blocked the article. Today, it’s a commonly discussed theory, with officials from former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield to CNN’s Sanjay Gupta saying it can’t be discounted. Even the head of the World Health Organization (WHO) has said it can’t be ruled out.
And of course the Post’s report on Joe Biden’s grifter son, Hunter.
In October, we published a series of articles about a laptop Hunter Biden left at a Delaware repair shop. Twitter suspended our account. You probably know how that ended. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted to lawmakers months later it was a “total mistake.”
It wasn’t a “total mistake” at all, Jack. You did it on purpose because you are a left-wing autocrat with the power to do so. The subsequent “mistake” was twofold:
You underestimated the public outcry and unfortunately for you, your overzealousness blew up in your hypocritical face after it was proved that the stories about Biden’s vagabond son were not, as you all pushed, concocted by… wait for it… “Russian propagandists.” Your non-apology apology was nothing more than that of a politician who apologizes after he gets caught cheating on his wife.
As the Post editorial board wrote, “We were right both times. We are right this time, too.”
Again, emphasis mine.
The $3.2 million real estate spending spree of BLM co-founder Patrisse Khan-Cullors is newsworthy for two reasons.
One, she’s an avowed Marxist, and as a public figure, it’s legitimate to question whether she’s practicing what she preaches.
Secondly, as the article details, the finances of Black Lives Matter are opaque, a mixture of for-profits and tax-free nonprofits, and they don’t reveal how much its executives are paid.
Are the people donating to BLM helping to pay for these properties?
As the editorial board noted, “Our article features some pictures of the properties she bought, but includes no addresses, in fact, doesn’t even say the city in some cases. Our reporter compiled the information from public records.”
So why was the Post link blocked? Why were journalists Jason Whitlock and Curtis Scoon locked out of their Twitter accounts for sharing publicly available information?
And James O’Keefe and Project Veritas? If the undercover videos they dropped this week were of a Fox News director bragging about his network’s efforts to help re-elect Donald Trump and keep Joe Biden the hell out of the White House, would O’Keefe now find himself permanently banned from Twitter?
These are rhetorical questions, of course.
Again, have we “gotten used to it”? Become “desensitized”? Tom Bevan, co-founder, and president of RealClearPolitics:
Not only do we know the answers, Big Tech, and the left know the answers, too. And they know that we know they know. Thing is? They don’t give a damn.
The Big Tech autocrats gave up subtlety and insidiousness a while back, bursting into our consciousness with the permanent banning of a sitting president of the United States — a move decried by other world leaders. But again? Big Tech doesn’t give a damn what other leaders think and they sure as hell don’t give a damn what you think.
Incidentally, as reported by Breitbart on Wednesday in an article titled Facebook Calls for More Regulations on Everything But Censorship, Zuck & Co. are once again “calling for more regulation of the tech industry, including a vague call for ‘more transparent’ content moderation and accountability for hosting illegal content, but makes scant mention of regulation to prevent censorship and political interference by the Silicon Valley giants themselves.”
They think you’re stupid. Don’t be.