CNN Host: We Should Yield to Government Censorship Demands

As a long-standing free speech advocate, the last few years have been alarming and, frankly, depressing. The censorship efforts of the government are, unfortunately, not new.  However, what is new is the support of the media and the Democratic Party in such censorship. That was on display on various channels after the recent opinion finding that the Biden Administration had violated the First Amendment in “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” However, the New York Times immediately warned that the outbreak of free speech could “curtail efforts to combat disinformation.” Yet, no one expressed more simply and chillingly than CNN Chief White House Correspondent Phil Mattingly who stated that it “makes sense” for tech companies to go along with government censorship demands.

Mattingly admitted that social media platforms “more often than not” gave in to the censorship demands by the Biden administration. However, he insisted that it “makes sense,” and is “probably what we should do on public health grounds.”

“[T]he Biden administration would regularly reach out to Twitter and Facebook and other companies in kind of the early stages of their COVID response and say, this person is spreading lies about vaccines, this account is spreading misinformation that is inhibiting — not just our efforts, the administration’s efforts to address COVID — but also public health, do something about it. And often, I think more often than not, the companies would respond and say, okay. And there are emails that came out during the course of this case that that was something that I think — when it was explained to me at the time, I thought, alright, that makes sense, that’s probably what we should do on public health grounds.”

What is striking is not just the blind acceptance that the government should be protecting us from harmful thoughts. It is also the failure to recognize that the government was wrong on many of these points while experts were being banned and blacklisted.

Many people were routinely censored on Twitter and other platforms for daring to challenge the official position on masks.

The Centers for Disease and Control Prevention (CDC) initially rejected the use of a mask mandate. However, the issue became a political weapon as politicians and the press claimed that questioning masks was anti-science and even unhinged. In April 2020, the CDC reversed its position and called for the masking of the entire population, including children as young as 2 years old.  The mask mandate and other pandemic measures like the closing of schools are now cited as fueling emotional and developmental problems in children.

The closing of schools and businesses was also challenged by some critics as unnecessary. Many of those critics were also censored. It now appears that they may have been right. Many countries did not close schools and did not experience increases in Covid. However, we are now facing alarming drops in testing scores and alarming rises in medical illness among the young.

Masks became a major social and political dividing line in politics and the media. Maskless people were chased from stores and denounced in Congress. Then-CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said during a Senate hearing that “face masks are the most important powerful health tool we have.”

However, there are now ample studies stating that “a new scientific review suggests that widespread masking may have done little to nothing to curb the transmission of COVID.” It added that “wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu-like illness/COVID-like illness (nine studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (six studies; 13,919 people).”

It also found little evidence of a difference from wearing better masks and that “wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (five studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu-like illness (five studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (three studies; 7799 people).”

Again, I expect that these studies will be debated for years. That is a good thing. There are questions raised over the types of studies used and whether randomized studies are sufficient. The point is only that there were countervailing indicators on mask efficacy and a basis to question the mandates. Yet, there was no real debate because of the censorship supported by many Democratic leaders in social media. To question such mandates was declared a public health threat.

The head of the World Health Organization even supported censorship to combat what he called an “infodemic.”

Scientists previously objected to the suspension of Dr. Clare Craig after she raised concerns about Pfizer trial documents. Those doctors were the co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdown as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination.  Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others.

The media has quietly acknowledged the science questioning mask efficacy and school closures without addressing its own role in attacking those who raised these objections. Even raising the lab theory on the origin of Covid 19 (a theory now treated as plausible) was denounced as a conspiracy theory. The science and health reporter for the New York Times, Apoorva Mandavilli,  even denounced the theory as “racist.”

Yet, Mattingly and others are defending censorship by repeating a tautology: the government must seek the censorship of ideas because some ideas must be censored.  Governments have always claimed that censorship of critics and dissenters is for the public’s best interest. They have always defined certain views as harmful or false.

Now, however, major media figures are shrugging off free speech concerns and supporting censorship as what former CNN media host CNN media correspondent Brian Stelter called a “harm reduction model.” While once fiercely opposed to censorship and government-supported blacklists, many in the media are echoing Mattingly’s view that the natural default should be to obey the government and its directions on permitted speech. After all, this is all for our own protection. Censorship just “makes sense.”

245 thoughts on “CNN Host: We Should Yield to Government Censorship Demands”

  1. “Your god has no power over me.”

    So what? Your rulers are kings, despots, and Marxists. You have no natural rights. That is fine with me.

      1. I signed using my real name this time. I usually do not do that in conservative sites because of previous threats.
        I trust you folks.

        1. Good for you. In general, Conservatives do not threaten. Marxists do. It is part of their revolutionary spirit.

            1. “I was not threatened by Marxists. Time to get real.”

              I didn’t make a comment about who threatened you. I said, “In general, Conservatives do not threaten. Marxists do. It is part of their revolutionary spirit.”

  2. “As a long-standing free speech advocate, the last few years have been alarming and, frankly, depressing. The censorship efforts of the government are, unfortunately, not new. However, what is new is the support of the media and the Democratic Party in such censorship”

    I beg to differ. That’s not new either.

      1. Cmon George, Censorship of the media, not censorship of a blog site. Although there were many Social media platforms that definitely practiced censorship over the last few election cycles. Hey, I just saw Obama showed up at the WH to have THE talk with Blow, I mean Joe and deliver some Baskin Robbins icecream, double dip!

          1. Do you mean like Book banning of sexually explicit garbage in public school libraries for grades 1st through 6th? I’m good with it! It’s easy to see what’s going down…pardon the expression 😳

              1. That would be fine with me, pornography is very addictive and is abusive. It doesn’t belong in our schools. Common sense just doesn’t seem so common anymore.

                    1. I had a problem like that while serving in Grand Jury 06-2 Northern District of California. It was my turn to run the jury and my first indictment. It was for finding scenes of child pornography in the phone of a returning citizen who had been gone for decades. Meanwhile, the Nixon commission on obscenity and pornography worked for a year or more to find pornography actually helps society by letting the perverts beat off to it. Our laws were enacted after he left and before coming back. He was unaware of them, so I was considering leniency, . . until I saw the first picture. I only looked at one the entire 24 months of service. I voted for and signed the indictment.

  3. Mr Turley! It is surprising that you fail to make the obvious point, that government does not follow the science, it follows the Constitution.

    Any partnership with government requires that the partners (State Actors) follow the Constitution. Government is flagrantly violating many aspects of the Supreme Law of the United States, our Constitution ( Article 6).

    1. The following should be banned
      Calls to riot and overthrow the US govt and murder or harm its citizens
      Let’s debate everthing else
      Fixed it Mr. Turley. first amendment

  4. I agree with Mr.Turley’s perspective. He points out that the government’s censorship of opposing views as “misinformation” as a justification for government propaganda ended with the exoneration of many, if not most, opposition views once the facts finally were revealed and reviewed.

    Unfortunately in this post modern era facts and truth and even scientific standards have become subjective to individual thought and preference. The sponsoring of censorship by government power brokers claiming protection for the people is actually inspired by their own perverse agendas to silence anyone who does not embrace their worldview. Their worldview is not only unencumbered by the dominate worldviews of many rational adults that disagree with theirs, but by any objective means or standards of justifying their beliefs over those who oppose them.

    It’s their way, or the low way, and censorship must be used not only to silence opposing views, but even factual evidence and scientific proofs. Proofs, which for centuries in the secular realm have been the standards of modern civilization.

    Mental illness in the political realm today, appears to have greater standing then history and rational thought.

    If this transgression of reality is allowed to continue unchallenged and not reversed, it is a certitude that our enemies will take every advantage of our illness to destroy us by their very rational, yet evil determination.

    1. Did you “forget” Fox?
      Have they ever revealed to their audience they paid $787,500,000 for LYING?

  5. As Lee Smith said about the American MSM, “It’s not a media, it’s a platform for intelligence operations. It’s not media at all. This is like the Arab press.” Smith said it in the context of the Russiagate fraud perpetrated by the MSM, but the point is that they are the tool of FedGov and the Ruling Class.

    1. There was no “Russiagate fraud”.
      Look up the Republican Senate Report on Russian complicity in our election.

      1. Another poster recently and uncerimoniously departed from this blog. He believed the same as you, but most of the blog members presented evidence and called him stupid. Maybe you can do better.

          1. GJK, please do read the Civility Code at the top of the blog.
            I encourage ignoring the Nony Mice.

Leave a Reply