It’s easy to take for granted one of our country’s greatest strengths: a legal system in which we settle our disputes peacefully in court. We do this without the type of violence, intimidation and threats against judges that occur in too many other countries. That was true until someone leaked a draft opinion from the Supreme Court a few weeks ago.
YouTube’s censors have struck again, removing a podcast discussing election integrity that it claims violates its “misinformation policy.”The podcast, hosted by Jacob Kersey, was an interview of me at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida, in February 2021 and had been on YouTube for more than a year before it was suddenly taken down.YouTube never responded to Kersey’s appeal of the ban, but a day after Douglas Blair wrote about the censorship in The Daily Signal, the video suddenly reappeared on the website. Kersey says he received no explanation from YouTube for its actions.
This past Thursday evening at the University of Buffalo (UB) I was invited by the Young America's Foundation Chapter at UB to deliver a presentation on “Race and American Exceptionalism.” Before I even arrived, the nature of my visit was made controversial when students on the campus ripped down flyers and even conducted a campus walking protest. Therefore, I knew this would be quite the hostile environment. The question I have is, why?
Just like the modern media, fact-checkers are partisan hacks on a mission. Check some recent examples of the fine propagandist art of “fact-checking” to see these “arbiters of truth” in action...
The League of Women Voters took issue with the Roundtable inviting me to speak. Its local chapter president, Rosanne Winter, sent the Roundtable a letter expressing the group’s “strong disappointment,” and protesting my choice as a speaker. The Roundtable should select “respected speakers,” said the League, by which it clearly means only those who don’t disagree with the League.
If you put your iPhone to the ground, you’ll hear distant war drums beating. On a quiet day, you might also catch hints of Silicon Valley boardroom debates. They know trouble is on the horizon, and I’ll bet some of that crypto money tech company bigwigs are wondering how the heck they’re going to respond.
Well, when you weaponize the DOJ and FBI, aiming both at angry parents speaking out at school board meetings, you ought to expect some backlash.
In October 2020, along with Professor Sunetra Gupta, we authored the Great Barrington Declaration, in which we argued for a ‘focused protection’ pandemic strategy. We called for better protection of older and other high-risk people, while arguing that children should be allowed to go to school and young adults should be free to live more normal lives. We understood that it might lead to vigorous and heated discussions, but we did not expect a multi-pronged propaganda campaign that gravely distorted our arguments and smeared us. We are just three public-health scientists, after all. So how and why did this slanderous counterattack emerge?
We, a former advisor to President Bill Clinton’s campaign and a former member of the George W. Bush Administration, may not agree on many public policy issues. Figuratively speaking, we wear different colored hats. But we have joined together to sound the alarm against censorship.
Cancel culture is inconsistent with the ethos of free enterprise, innovation, and discovery on a number of levels.