Journalists Demand Rumble Censor People with Whom They Disagree! And Elon Musk’s on the Hit Parade


Content moderation” is the Orwellian euphemism which corporate journalists and liberals (excuse the redundancy) have created for the term “censorship.

~ Glenn Greenwald

Robert Reich, who has turned communist lingo into household words, wrote an Orwellian column titled, “Elon Musk’s vision for the Internet is dangerous nonsense. As Jonathan Turley, a prominent professor and legal commentator wrote: However, the column offers an insight into the anti-free speech mentality that has taken hold of the Democratic party and the media.

As Professor Turley writes, “Twitter has gone from denial of seeking to shape speech on the Internet to embracing that function.”

Former CEO Jack Dorsey was criticized for massive censorship. Then they replaced him with Parag Agrawal. Parag doesn’t believe in free speech!

One line from the piece is particularly crazy. Reich writes that Musk’s “libertarian vision of an ‘uncontrolled’ internet,” where free speech is protected, is dangerous. It’s “the dream of every dictator, strongman, and demagogue.”

That, of course, is the opposite of the truth.


It’s not only Twitter and other social media demanding censorship, it’s legacy media. Truth is the enemy of our elite media.

MSM journalists want to know why Rumble isn’t censoring people who don’t follow YouTube’s [authoritarian] policies. They are especially unhappy about those who don’t follow the narrative on Ukraine.

No matter how trivial the dissent, the elites want them censored. They love the proxy war in Ukraine. It greatly benefits the psychos in DC. Any questioning could put their goals in jeopardy. It’s so lucrative, gives them power, and solidifies their positions. And, for an added benefit, Joe Biden can pretend he’s FDR, not the fool that he is.

As reporter Glenn Greenwald says, he can’t overstate how dangerous it is for journalists to demand censorship.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
1 year ago

I served in the Military and in doing so I pledged to bear true faith and allegiance to the US Constitution. One of those Ideals is Free Speech – ALL Speech. I don’t have to like your speech, but I will fight for your right to make a fool of yourself. Those who work to crush free speech, deserve neither Speech or Liberty!

Depriving People of their Constitutional Rights is a Crime. The Internet is the Modern Public Square and the Congress has acknowledged this with Section 230 which protect Companies from the publishing of your Speech. I doesn’t give Companies the Right to Censor your Speech. The most Internet companies can do is warn People about content they see as objectionable, opinion, or not based in factual information. In limited cases. it would allow censoring of outright threats or clearly foul content. It does not give Companies the Right of Complete Censorship of Opinion or a Right to Censor information that is based in Fact.

One of the drawbacks of the Newspaper was the Editor could pick and chose what to publish because the Paper could be sued. Section 230 for the most part takes this liability away from the Internet, but when the Internet assumes the position of Editor then Section 230 should no longer apply. The intent of Section 230 was to expand free speech, not allow Big Tech to violate Constitutional Rights. While website operators have limited rights to police bad actors, Section 230 does not give them a right to Censor Free Speech and Opinions; especially opinions based in fact.

Big Tech is now hiding behind Section 230 to allow then to Publish Propaganda and suppress actual News contrary to the Propaganda. Big Tech is using Section to 230 to Shape Opinion, by deciding what opinion is allowed. Big Tech has aligned itself with a Party of the Government, Democrats, and now practices pure Fascism. By doing this Big Tech is providing an Illegal Political Contribution to the Democrat Party.