Biden Administration’s Harrowing Assault on Free Speech

The current administration seems to be exercising an unprecedented level of control over media outlets, compelling them into suppressing content it perceives as unfavorable. Swiftly following an ominous warning from the FCC chair, ABC opted to indefinitely halt a certain program. This has resulted in consternation among conservative commentators, pushing them into a challenging situation.

It is notable that these same commentators have spent the larger part of the past decade vociferously defending free speech and condemning any attempts at censorship by the left. This only begs the question, how should one reconcile their preservation of free speech with their seemingly contradictory attitudes towards public individuals?

There are some conservatives who have expressed their apprehensions over the administration’s increasingly authoritative approach towards expression. However, there are also those who find ways to justify these evident transgressions, creating a schism within the group.

Noticeably, there is a distinct contrast with the former administration whose supposed trespasses against free speech now seem minor and reasoned. It was during a public health crisis that they sought to stem the flood of misinformation that threatened to mislead the public.

Strictly speaking, the earlier administration only suggested what social media companies should do to mitigate the misinformation, and never attempted to impose their views as mandates. Given the substantial influence federal government can have over these organizations, their suggestions could be interpreted as guarded advice rather than guised threats.

Nonetheless, an administration blatantly threatening to impose punitive regulatory actions against organizations that host undesirable viewpoints represents an alarmingly authoritarian attitude towards free speech. This escalates beyond mere suggested actions and takes a bold step into the realm of regulatory retaliation.

Frighteningly, it’s not an empty threat either. The administration has proven its resolve by subjecting contentious outlets to intensified regulatory scrutiny. This is an alarming precedent that undermines the principles of democracy.

Indeed, the Commission does possess the capability to penalize broadcasters for ‘hoaxes.’ This refers to instances where a broadcaster knowingly disseminates false information that results in ‘direct’ and immediate ‘public harm’. However, this power seems to be exercised rather arbitrarily under the current governance.

Presenting hypocrisy as a rationale for despotism is a dangerous path. An administration openly threatening to shut down broadcasts that oppose it is an undeniable affront to political freedom.

There are those who would have us believe otherwise, yet their doing so only reveals their disdain for constitutional order. The notion of political liberty is gravely threatened if administrations are able to employ their executive power to suppress dissenting voices.

Much as we may like to think otherwise, these are the stark realities of our current political landscape. A constitutional democracy thrives on the freedom of expression, not the throttling of it.

Awareness and vigilance from the citizens are integral to preserving the sanctity of free speech. It ultimately falls on us to scrutinize our leadership and make our voices heard, lest the mighty power of administrative authority is wielded to diminish our civil liberties.

Discerning hypocrisy from justified action, tyranny from authority, falls onto our collective consciousness as a society. We must not allow the premise of misinformation to become an excuse for an unchecked infringement of our democratic rights.