Silencing a Nation: Biden’s COVID Censorship Machine

1. 85

   Sharlee01posted 2 weeks ago

   The Biden White House and Big Tech: A Coordinated Effort to Silence Americans
   
   The lesson is plain: free speech has to be defended all the time, not just when it fits a preferred narrative. The hypocrisy is glaring, so thick you could cut it with a knife, yet somehow it still doesn’t sink in.
   
   During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Biden administration crossed a line no American government should ever cross. Instead of trusting citizens with open debate and the free flow of ideas, the White House leaned heavily on Big Tech companies like Facebook (now Meta) and Twitter (now X) to silence Americans who questioned the official narrative. What unfolded was not “requests” or “suggestions”, it was government pressure that led to outright censorship.
   
   Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, admitted this himself in a 2023 letter to Congress. “Senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire,” Zuckerberg wrote. He went further: “I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret we were not more outspoken about it.” Those words, from the head of the world’s largest social media company, are not speculation. They are an admission under oath that government pressure directly influenced what Americans were allowed to say and see.
   
   Evidence uncovered in the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit made the coordination crystal clear. Internal emails showed White House officials flagging specific posts and accounts for removal. Rob Flaherty, then the White House’s director of digital strategy, was at the center of this. Despite his later testimony to Congress claiming, “There were no threats,  period,” the documents tell a different story. Flaherty and others emailed and called platform executives repeatedly, demanding action on posts that the administration disliked. When the federal government is contacting private companies daily to “flag” speech, it ceases to be voluntary. That is coercion.
   
   The courts recognized how serious this was. A federal district judge found that Biden officials had engaged in what he described as “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld much of that ruling, finding that the administration’s actions likely crossed the constitutional line into government censorship. Even the Supreme Court, while focusing on standing in Murthy v. Missouri, could not avoid noting the sheer volume and intensity of White House pressure.
   
   Twitter’s history further exposes the problem. Under oath in 2018, then-CEO Jack Dorsey told Congress, “We do not shadowban anyone based on political ideology.” Yet the “Twitter Files,” released after Elon Musk’s purchase of the company, showed that government-linked “requests” to throttle or remove content were commonplace, especially surrounding COVID and later political speech. Once again, Americans were misled while their voices were quietly suppressed.
   
   The hypocrisy is staggering. Today, many on the left rage about “freedom of speech” because Jimmy Kimmel lost his show after making offensive remarks. Yet these same voices stayed silent, or worse, cheered,  while the Biden White House pressured Big Tech to erase opinions, satire, and scientific debate during COVID. If freedom of speech matters, it cannot only apply when it’s convenient for one side.
   
   This episode should alarm every American, regardless of political persuasion. The government has no business dictating what jokes we can tell, what opinions we can share, or what debates we can have. The First Amendment was written precisely to protect citizens from this kind of overreach. The Biden administration trampled that principle in the name of “safety,” and too many on the left looked away because it suited their politics.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Shar, what are your thoughts on the likes of Kimmel losing his job?  That is not uncommon since Kirk was killed; the school my grandkids go to, a half mile form me, fired a teacher after she made an offensive video and posted it.  Said it was for assault, but no one believes that.
      
      Was the teacher firing OK considering what her job was but others aren't?  Are any of the firings OK?  None? All?

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Ken Burgessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         Kimmel is PAID...an employee... If he doesn't represent what ABC wants... Yeah... He should be fired.
         
         He doesn't have a right to use the ABC platform he was given to spout his own political beliefs...
         
         Johnny Carson never used his show to push politics ... especially not after someone is murdered.
         
         These clowns think they are modern day Plato or Socrates... They are idiots to stupid to realize they are idiots lucky to be making millions being bad nightshow hosts.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            "... many on the left rage about 'freedom of speech' because Jimmy Kimmel lost his show after making offensive remarks.' Sharlee.
            
            It is not a matter of freedom of speech.
            At all.
            
            "If you slander others, you will be sued. You must go. We don't want to be sued.
            Not to mention your ratings are too low to produce a profit."

            replyreport
         2. 85

            Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Ken, I’m fed up with all the armchair nonsense. Kimmel became a massive liability the moment he lied openly to his audience. The FCC has strict rules, and he clearly crossed a major line. It’s almost certain his widow will file a defamation case the likes of which we’ve never seen. The firing couldn’t be more obvious, but in court, this kind of stunt won’t fly on its own. Mark my words: we’re looking at one of the largest settlements in history. This man lied openly about her husband's death.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

               "The FCC has strict rules, and he clearly crossed a major line.
               
               Can you apply those rules to Pam and let me know how she didn't cross them?? 
               
               I mean rules are meaningless if they aren't applied consistently, right?
               
               BUT
               
               There has been no formal FCC ruling that Jimmy Kimmel broke the agency's rules.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  The case would have gone to trial. They avoided being sued by firing him.

                  replyreport
2. 83

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks ago

   "Was the teacher firing OK?" wilderness
   
   If teachers are offending parents to the point that they threaten to withdraw their children or protest viciously, yes teachers should be fired. The school district has the right and responsibility to manage their affairs according to outcomes they are attempting to either achieve or avoid.

   replyreport
3. 83

   Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks ago

   Q. Does the government have the right to control the free flow of ideas and discussions of what is true?
   
   Maybe in some countries ...
   
   In our Country, however, freedom of speech, intended for some benefit, is protected as a inalienable RIGHT.

   replyreport
4. 60

   Willowarborposted 2 weeks ago

   So yes, agreement that the Kimmel case and the Biden v. Missouri case are examples of "jawboning"...
   using government power or threats to coerce private companies into limiting protected speech?   You can debate the reasons as to why...Biden to limit covid misinformation and Trump to crack down on those who hurt his feelings... Both intrusive on the first amendment

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      It's more than feeling "hurt":
      
      "... individuals possess a right not to be subjected to falsehoods that impugn their character. The clash between the two rights can lead to expensive litigation, million-dollar jury verdicts and negative public views of the press."
      
      https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article … d-slander/

      replyreport
   2. 100

      DrMark1961posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      So Kimmel told us that the shooter was a MAGA member, Isnt that misinformation?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         My statement was clear... Both are examples of jawboning.

         replyreport
         1. 100

            DrMark1961posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            So disseminating misinformation is fine as long as you have no official capacity?

            replyreport
5. 60

   Willowarborposted 2 weeks ago

   FCC head Carr claims  that Kimmel's comments constituted "broadcast news distortion" and an "intentional effort to mislead the American people".
   
   Didn't the regime's attorney general distort or make an intentional effort to mislead the American people by characterizing Kirk's murderer as a "leftist extremist" in front of millions of people...
   
   BEFORE ANY MOTIVE HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED.... PLEASE DO TELL

   replyreport
   1. 83

      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      intent vs effect

      replyreport