CNN Guest Frantically Denounces Musk's Twitter Purchase, Cites Need to Control Speech

CNN Guest Frantically Denounces Musk's Twitter Purchase, Cites Need to Control Speech

Donald Trump and Republicans are routinely denounced by the Democratic left as “Nazis,” “fascists,” and “tyrants,” but the fact is, those who belong to and vote for the party of the donkey bear a lot more resemblance to those traits than the GOP ever has.

Case in point: The new position of the Democrat hard left is to censor anyone who doesn’t climb aboard the woke, libtard groupthink wagon, as evidenced again by a couple of recent examples.

First, journalist and author David Zurawik appeared on the misnamed CNN program “Reliable Sources” to complain to host Brian Stelter that billionaire Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter and vow to return it to a true free speech platform was somehow a threat to our constitutional republic, the same one that is guided by a Constitution that enshrines free speech and freedom of the press as core citizen guarantees.

During the episode, Zurawik addressed Tesla and SpaceX CEO Musk’s Twitter acquisition, which he said is nothing short of “dangerous.”

“When we focus on the personality of people like Elon Musk … there’s a bigger problem about how we are going to control the channels of communication in this country,” he warned. “In 1927, we had the Radio Act. In 1934, the Communications Act. Congress stepped in; we made rules.”

The Federal Communications Commission, he noted further, “wasn’t great, but it is still regulating the broadcast industry.”

“We gave over our what amounts to our airwaves, or our internet waves, to Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, and we are in so much trouble,” Zurawik insisted. “Because those guys believe in making money. We’ve already seen that with the 2016 election and Zuckerberg when he was taking rubles for ads from Russia and saying, ‘Oh I think it’s crazy to think that they had any influence on this election.'”

Musk, he added, is supposedly cut from the same cloth — and that our country quickly descended into chaos following the election of former President Donald Trump (it did, thanks to the machinations and scheming of the deep state, which includes much of the ‘mainstream media’ — guys like Zurawik who serve as willing dupes).

“This is dangerous!” he shouted. “We can’t think any more in this country — we don’t have people … in Congress who can make regulations that can make it work. I think we can look to the Western countries in Europe for how they are trying to limit it, but you need — you need — controls on this. You need regulation. You cannot let these guys control discourse in this country or we are headed to hell. We are there. Trump opened the gates of hell and now they’re chasing us down.”

Listen to this lunatic:

In another example noted by famed constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, Time magazine columnist Charlotte Alter — again, using Musk as her foil — claimed outright that free speech is racist because white men (like Zurawik?) are “obsessed” with it.

“Why does Musk care so much about this? Why would a guy who has pushed the boundaries of electric-vehicle manufacturing and plumbed the limits of commercial space flight care about who can say what on Twitter?” she wrote.

She then went on to claim that “‘free speech’ in the 21st century means something very different than it did in the 18th, when the Founders enshrined it in the Constitution. The right to say what you want without being imprisoned is not the same as the right to broadcast disinformation to millions of people on a corporate platform. This nuance seems to be lost on some techno-wizards who see any restriction as the enemy of innovation.”

Turley responds:

Censorship has always been based on the notion that the underlying speech was false or harmful. Calling it “disinformation” does not materially change the motivation or the impact. What Alter calls a “Tech Bro obsession” was the obsession of the Framers.

Alter is confusing free speech values with the rationale for the First Amendment. For years, anti-free-speech figures have dismissed free speech objections to social media censorship by stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not private companies. The distinction was always a dishonest effort to evade the implications of speech controls, whether implemented by the government or corporations.

If there are any authoritarian tendencies among today’s two main political parties, it quite obviously emanates from the [un]Democratic left.


Join the Newsletter