Please read these eloquent words regarding the danger of censorship from Dr. James Lyons-Weiler
Our first amendment is facing a brutal and senseless attack while mainstream sources look away or politicize the assault on our freedom.
I recently criticized Sam Harris, PhD because he argues that it would be irresponsible to allow RFK Jr. to ask questions on public platforms. I strongly believe that an effort to squelch public debate, especially around medical and scientific issues, will prove to be more dangerous than any virus or vaccine. This should, in a nation built on the principle of freedom of expression, be self-evident.
By holding this stance with regard to Kennedy who “raises suspicion” by asking questions, Harris is oblivious to the possibility that he may be wrong about him, or that Kennedy could be accused of actions or words that he did not do or say. How would he defend himself against this eventuality if he isn’t allowed to defend himself? How will the record be set straight? How can we possibly “make sense” if only a subset of opinions are granted a platform? And the most important question, who will be the arbiter of which opinions are valid and which aren’t?
This week, Kennedy was permitted to offer his remarks to a House subcommittee regarding government sanctioned censorship after attempts were made to prevent his commentary from appearing in open session. In his opening remarks Kennedy said:
“This is an attempt to censor a censorship hearing.”
He’s right, and we should all take notice of what is transpiring our nation’s capitol.
This morning I read a speech delivered yesterday by independent scientist, James Lyons-Weiler, PhD at Michigan’s State Capitol. Please take a few minutes to absorb what he had to say.
Here’s a link to his article followed by the full text of his speech. Please consider sharing and/or subscribing to his substack.
“Today, I stand before you to shed light on a topic that has plagued societies throughout history: censorship. In particular, I will focus on the insidious phenomenon of censorship by those in power when their authority is threatened by the emergence of new technology.
This morning, just as Presidential Candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was about to testify before the Weaponization of Government Committee on the topic of Censorship, fellow Democrat party members tried to censor him by moving the proceedings to executive session so you and I would not be able to hear what he has to say. If you have not seen the video, find it and watch it. They are clearly acting out of fear.
The FBI went to Big Tech to censor American citizens like me. They censored us on Twitter. They censored us on Facebook. They are still censoring us through Facebook. They censored journalists. They censored scientists. They censored doctors. They censored activists. I have a problem with the US government when they try to stop us from sharing information with each other, and that's why I'm standing at this podium to discuss censorship - because I am free to do so. When they start censoring the freedom to talk about freedom, it's game over for democracy.
From the dawn of civilization, the thirst for control has been deeply ingrained in the hearts of those in power. Whenever a groundbreaking technological advancement emerges, it possesses the potential to empower the masses, challenge the status quo, and disrupt the established order. This transformative power has often triggered a sense of fear and insecurity among those who hold the reins of authority and influences and the gains and advantages that come with them.
Throughout the annals of time, rulers and governments have resorted to censorship as a means to maintain their dominance. History bears witness to countless instances where information deemed threatening to those in power was suppressed, silenced, or distorted. Whether it was the printing press in the Renaissance, radio and television in the 20th century, or the internet in recent times, each new medium of communication has encountered fierce resistance from the ruling elite.
Let us take a step back and reflect on the power of information. When harnessed effectively, it possesses the ability to unite, enlighten, and emancipate. It allows individuals to exchange ideas, challenge conventional wisdom, and question authority. Recognizing this potential, governments and rulers have sought to control the narrative by imposing restrictions, manipulating information, and suppressing dissent.
Yet, despite their efforts, the human spirit has always found a way to break free from the shackles of censorship. Throughout history, brave individuals, journalists, and activists have defied oppressive regimes, striving to ensure the free flow of information. They have fought valiantly, often at great personal risk, to safeguard the right to access knowledge and exercise freedom of expression.
In today's digital age, we find ourselves standing at the precipice of a new frontier, where technology has connected the world like never before. The internet, with its vast reach and instantaneous dissemination of information, has become a formidable force, capable of challenging the status quo and empowering individuals on an unprecedented scale.
There are those who say they believe that the unfettered sharing of knowledge and information is a danger to society. We understand, however, that their fear of loss of control - and the gains and advantages that come with control - drives their instinct to silence dissent. History has shown us, time and again, that in free and open societies, rational discourse and free competition in the marketplace of ideas foster the emergence of solutions via the forces of mutual understanding, compromise, or the combination of ideas into new syntheses by people who can see past the differences in ideology.
It is in this realm of open discourse that the true power of humanity unfolds. Throughout history, we have witnessed groundbreaking discoveries, social reforms, and paradigm shifts brought about by the free exchange of ideas. From the scientific revolution to the civil rights movement, it has been through the clash and refinement of differing opinions that we have advanced as a society.
As we navigate the challenges of the digital age, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to upholding the principles of free expression and unfettered access to knowledge. We must strive to create an inclusive space where all voices are heard, where diverse perspectives are celebrated, and where the power to shape our collective future lies not in the hands of a select few, but in the collective wisdom of a truly engaged and empowered citizenry.
We must remember that the fear-driven impulse to silence dissent and control information is a misguided path that stifles progress and inhibits the flourishing of society. Instead, we should embrace the transformative power of open dialogue and the free exchange of ideas. By doing so, we honor the legacy of those who have fought for the right to express themselves freely throughout history and pave the way for a future where knowledge, understanding, and progress can thrive.
In conclusion, the history of censorship reveals a recurring pattern: when faced with the threat of new technology, those in power have often sought to stifle its potential by imposing restrictions on the free flow of information. Yet, time and again, courageous individuals and movements have risen to challenge these oppressive measures, fighting for the fundamental human right to access knowledge and express oneself freely. As we navigate the complexities of the digital age, let us remain vigilant, protecting the principles of transparency, accountability, and open dialogue that underpin a thriving and democratic society.”
I totally agree with you that one of the most important questions about what we should hear and what we shouldn't hear -- perhaps the single most important questions -- is, "Who gets to decide?" The pro-censorship people keep trying to create the impression that there is some objective standard to discern real news from fake news, information from misinformation. They resort to saying, "Well, the fact-checkers looked into it," as if fact-checking were somehow an objective process. And most of these pro-censorship people hate the corporations, yet they want the corporations to decide what we can know and what we can't! Let's all keep hammering on this "Who gets to decide?" question, I think it's the key.
Thanks for using your platform to fight censorship.