SamuelGabrielSG on Nostr: The Hypocrisy of the Media: How Free Speech Advocates Have Become Its Greatest ...
The Hypocrisy of the Media: How Free Speech Advocates Have Become Its Greatest Opponents
The news media exists because of free speech. It thrives on its ability to report, investigate, and editorialize without government interference. Yet, in a stunning display of hypocrisy, many of today’s major media outlets have become some of the most vocal proponents of censorship. They push for deplatforming, advocate for silencing dissent, and work in lockstep with political interests to redefine what speech is "acceptable" for public discourse.
A recent example highlights this disturbing trend: CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan attempted to frame free speech as the driving force behind the Holocaust during a discussion with Senator Marco Rubio.
During an exchange about JD Vance’s comments on free speech, Brennan claimed:
"[Vance] was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide..."
This astonishing assertion was quickly rebuffed by Rubio, who pointed out the obvious historical fact that Nazi Germany was anything but a bastion of free speech:
"I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews... There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none."
Rubio is, of course, correct. The Nazi regime did not allow free speech; it crushed dissent, controlled the press, and punished those who spoke against it. The Holocaust was not the result of "too much free speech" but of a state that systematically suppressed speech and controlled the narrative to justify its atrocities.
Why Is the Media Doing This?
So why would a mainstream journalist try to frame free speech as a dangerous tool for genocide? Because the media, which once prided itself on holding power to account, has now aligned itself with power. Instead of championing free expression, many in the press now work to control the bounds of discourse, labeling speech they dislike as "harmful" or "misinformation."
By redefining free speech as a danger rather than a fundamental right, these outlets justify censorship under the guise of “protection.” They want the public to believe that limiting speech is necessary for safety and social cohesion. But history shows us that censorship does not prevent atrocities—it enables them.
The Slippery Slope of Censorship
When free speech is curtailed, the ability to challenge authority disappears. This is precisely why authoritarian regimes—from the Nazis to the Soviets to the modern-day Chinese Communist Party—rely on censorship as a primary tool for control. It is no coincidence that the very media outlets who exist because of free speech are pushing the public toward a world where only state-approved narratives are allowed.
If we allow the press to continue distorting reality to push for censorship, we risk losing the very thing that enables a free and open society. The media’s job should be to challenge power, not reinforce it by advocating for speech restrictions. If they no longer believe in the foundational principle that allows them to exist, perhaps it’s time we stop giving them our trust.
The news media exists because of free speech. It thrives on its ability to report, investigate, and editorialize without government interference. Yet, in a stunning display of hypocrisy, many of today’s major media outlets have become some of the most vocal proponents of censorship. They push for deplatforming, advocate for silencing dissent, and work in lockstep with political interests to redefine what speech is "acceptable" for public discourse.
A recent example highlights this disturbing trend: CBS News anchor Margaret Brennan attempted to frame free speech as the driving force behind the Holocaust during a discussion with Senator Marco Rubio.
During an exchange about JD Vance’s comments on free speech, Brennan claimed:
"[Vance] was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide..."
This astonishing assertion was quickly rebuffed by Rubio, who pointed out the obvious historical fact that Nazi Germany was anything but a bastion of free speech:
"I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews... There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none."
Rubio is, of course, correct. The Nazi regime did not allow free speech; it crushed dissent, controlled the press, and punished those who spoke against it. The Holocaust was not the result of "too much free speech" but of a state that systematically suppressed speech and controlled the narrative to justify its atrocities.
Why Is the Media Doing This?
So why would a mainstream journalist try to frame free speech as a dangerous tool for genocide? Because the media, which once prided itself on holding power to account, has now aligned itself with power. Instead of championing free expression, many in the press now work to control the bounds of discourse, labeling speech they dislike as "harmful" or "misinformation."
By redefining free speech as a danger rather than a fundamental right, these outlets justify censorship under the guise of “protection.” They want the public to believe that limiting speech is necessary for safety and social cohesion. But history shows us that censorship does not prevent atrocities—it enables them.
The Slippery Slope of Censorship
When free speech is curtailed, the ability to challenge authority disappears. This is precisely why authoritarian regimes—from the Nazis to the Soviets to the modern-day Chinese Communist Party—rely on censorship as a primary tool for control. It is no coincidence that the very media outlets who exist because of free speech are pushing the public toward a world where only state-approved narratives are allowed.
If we allow the press to continue distorting reality to push for censorship, we risk losing the very thing that enables a free and open society. The media’s job should be to challenge power, not reinforce it by advocating for speech restrictions. If they no longer believe in the foundational principle that allows them to exist, perhaps it’s time we stop giving them our trust.