Sometimes, it seems the echo chamber effect has enabled folks in the activist media to easily deceive their audiences because they know they won’t seek out other sources of information. I suspect this is what is happening in a recent op-ed written by Adrienne LaFrance, executive editor of The Atlantic.
In her piece, LaFrance makes the claim that former President Donald Trump has a “hatred of free speech” and uses his constant criticism of the press to argue that he will somehow use the government to silence dissenting voices.
Always accuse your enemy of that which you are doing, right?
LaFrance refers to Trump’s tendency to label the press as “the enemy of the people” or to state that those discussing his criminal charges should be investigated for treason as proof that he hates speech. “[H]e is not merely denigrating a professional class; he is directly attacking the rights of all Americans,” the author writes.
Donald Trump does not seem to believe in free speech or the freedom of the press at all. He believes that when his fellow citizens say things he doesn't like, he should have the power to shut them up. And he has repeatedly suggested investigating and imprisoning Americans, as well as turning the U.S. military on the American people in order to do so.
The author then parrots another hackneyed talking point, claiming he reveres authoritarian leaders in countries like China and the Philippines.
No wonder Trump is so starry-eyed over China's dictator, Xi Jinping, whom Trump often praises in effusive terms. No wonder Trump has similarly embraced the dictator and former president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, who bragged about leading his country to the extrajudicial killing of thousands of Filipino citizens, including those working as journalists.
Of course, no “Orange Man Bad” piece would be complete without mentioning the Tesla Man What Is Bad™, right? LaFrance claims Elon Musk, owner of X, “claims to be a free-speech absolutist, all while remaking Twitter into a propaganda arm of the Trump campaign.”
"Musk likes to post spirited calls to action on his social platform such as 'We are the mainstream media now,' seeming to believe that he is the one who grants Americans their right to expression,” the author continued.
But there is something conspicuously absent from LaFrance’s diatribe: Any mention of actions Trump took during his first term to suppress speech.
Yet, there are plenty examples of Democrats trying to stifle dissenting views or arguing for such action on the part of government.
Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal published a piece detailing a concerning trend occurring in blue states in which Democratic lawmakers are proposing measures that would restrict employers from discussing political or religious matters in mandatory workplace meetings. In Illinois, lawmakers are pushing a bill that broadly defines “political” and “religious” matters in a way that would make it easy for the state government to intervene.
Democrats in Springfield are racing to pass legislation before their legislative session concludes this week to prohibit employers from discussing “religious or political matters” at mandatory meetings. While Democrats claim to be protecting workers from intimidation, their real goal is to silence employers.
The bill defines “political matters” broadly to include proposals to change public policy, as well as the “decision to join or support any political party or political, civic, community, fraternal, or labor organization.” Its similarly expansive definition of “religious matters” sweeps in support for a “religious organization or association.”
New York, Oregon, Minnesota, and others have already enacted similar legislation. Each of these laws is facing legal challenges in court.
If this isn’t a brazen violation of the First Amendment, I don’t know what is. This type of legislation is aimed at creating a chilling effect on workplace discourse. By prohibiting employers from discussing these matters, Democrats are using the force of government to control what people discuss in private institutions. The reality is that if one does not like the political or religious leanings of their employers, they can find work elsewhere. There is no valid reason to get the state involved. Yet, here we are, right?
But wait, there’s more!
Let us hop into the political DeLorean and head way back to a time called “December 2022” when Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who is running as Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, argued that the First Amendment does not protect “misinformation” or “hate speech.”
During an appearance on MSNBC, he argued, “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”
In essence, Walz suggested that if one has a dissenting perspective on an election, the government should be granted the authority to punish them for it.
Not only does Walz’s opinion on this matter contradict the First Amendment, but it reveals that he believes the state should be used against those who express opinions that are not government-approved.
The reality is that the First Amendment covers both “misinformation” and “hate speech.” If it didn’t, everyone at MSNBC might be in prison.
Last but not least, we have the Biden-Harris administration’s penchant for funding private institutions that work to suppress right-leaning viewpoints on social media platforms. A House committee investigation revealed that the Pentagon and other federal agencies have been funding NewsGuard, a for-profit “fact-checking” firm that acts as an agent of leftist censorship campaigns against conservative and libertarian news outlets.
This is not the only organization that receives taxpayer funding to collaborate with social media platforms to censor right-leaning speech. The State Department previously funded the Global Disinformation Index, an organization that attacks conservative news sites by convincing advertisers not to show their ads on their platforms.
If I had to list each example of leftists attacking free speech, it would be like counting each grain of sand at Newport Beach. Indeed, even the author herself shows an aversion to the notion that non-progressive views should be heard online. Her comments about Musk allowing conservatives and libertarians an uncensored voice on X betray a remarkable contempt for the spirit of the First Amendment.
As is typical, LaFrance, as with most of her leftist media activist contemporaries, is simply deflecting.
