The name of this blog is Listen First Please. I chose that name because I am concerned that many of us struggle to entertain perspectives that differ or challenge our viewpoint on a subject or issue. In my opinion, this is a really important topic that we must address. However, what happens to our ability to see both sides of an issue if we are only fed information from one side? This blog is going to be a little more controversial so if that is not to your liking, stop reading!
Since 2020, many deaths in America have been caused by Covid-19. As of this writing, that number stands at 1,219,487. At the start of the pandemic, I remember walking into a Home Depot and seeing many of the customers wearing masks. At that moment I said to myself, “it will be a snowy day in hell before I wear a mask”. Within a few weeks, it must have snowed in hell because there I was in Home Depot, wearing a mask. Like many Americans, I was frightened. At the height of the pandemic, we watched hour after hour of news coverage discussing the death toll caused by the virus. We had CNN showing a death count on a daily basis. We had state governors issuing mandates that closed businesses and shut down the economy. We had proclamations by government officials stating that we should stay inside and if we were going to go outside, wear a mask. We were in a full blown panic.
Unfortunately, full blown panics lead to some questionable policies. Let me elaborate! No doubt, we were frightened and we had a serious challenge. We were being told how awful this virus was and the damage it might do. That fear however led to censorship. Please read the following excerpt from an article written by Sara Talpos in 2024 entitled; Did the Battle Against “Misinformation” Go Too Far:
In March 2021, a Twitter user asked Martin Kulldorff if everyone needed to be vaccinated against Covid-19. Kulldorff, then a professor at Harvard Medical School, had spent 20 years researching infectious diseases and contributing to the development of the country’s vaccine safety surveillance system.
“No,” he responded. The vaccines were important for some high-risk people, he wrote, but “those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.”
That advice put Kulldorf outside the mainstream in his field, and he soon faced consequences from Twitter (now known as X). The social network labeled the tweet as misleading and inserted a link offering users an opportunity “to learn why health officials recommend a vaccine for most people.” Twitter also limited the post’s ability to be retweeted and liked, Kulldorff said in a recent interview.
The experience spooked him. His account had already been suspended once, he said, and he didn’t want to risk a permanent ban. “I had to self-censor,” said Kulldorff. “I didn’t say everything I would have liked to say.”
He was far from alone. Over the course of the pandemic, major social media companies removed thousands of accounts and millions of posts that contained statements about Covid-19 flagged as false or misleading.
Over and over we were told by government officials, we are just “following the science”. The trouble is, true science questions assumptions and encourages the testing of hypotheses; unfortunately, propaganda does not! When scientists with dissenting opinions are “muzzled” because their thoughts run counter to the narrative being put forth by our government, we are heading down a “slippery slope”. It is impossible to Listen First when dialogue and debate are squashed! Your thoughts??? Tom
8 responses to “Censorship in America – When Do We Go Too Far?”
Hi Tom, a few thoughts… i see censorship as a regulation. The government has all kinds of regulations on every industry, many of which have protected its people. For example: Pittsburgh used to have terrible air quality before air pollution control. Without food regulations we would have more people get sick and dying. Without auto regulations less people survived car accidents.
But when it comes to the first amendment or the second amendment why do Americans think we need no regulations?
These out of control mass shootings do not happen in other countries. Is this harming our country, yes. I believe this industry needs more regulations.
As far as freedom of speech, there has been much harm done also. Are the Haitians in Ohio eating pets, no. But look at the harm this statement has caused.
Cancel culture is a fairly new term which I would say falls under censorship. Is book Banning part of cancel culture? I believe it is. How about just having age appropriate books in school libraries?
Instead of taking hundreds of books off the shelf because the teachers and school are afraid of the new censorship the governor of FL has instituted! True story of a principal and a teacher!
Where do we draw the line when it comes to regulating freedom of speech? When we were kids or even younger adults it seemed people took more personal responsibility for what they said. Where did this rudeness factor in everyday life become ok? But what if people, news networks, social media, etc dont take personal, ethical, responsibility?
Should regulations step in to protect people? That is the 6 Million dollar question.
In the therapy world, along with medical ethical regulations, we are to “do no harm”.
How does the media “do no harm” without some kind of scrutiny?
Hi Jan! It is an absolute joy hearing from you! I love the “spirit” of your comments. This is exactly what I hoped would come from my posts – an honest discussion of issues with differing viewpoints! Thank you!
I could not agree with you more, there is a need for some government regulation. If you were to ask my thoughts on the 2nd amendment, I would say that we need more stringent background checks before someone can purchase a firearm and we need to look closely at the types of firearms we allow a citizen to purchase. For those that enjoy hunting or going to a shooting range, they should have every right to do those activities. That said, in my opinion, we need to look closely at what types of weapons a person is able to purchase. So you and I may have some common ground on this issue.
As for the 1st amendment, you may be surprised that we have many of the same beliefs. I am not in favor of banning books. Your suggestion of having age appropriate books is worthwhile. However, if a parent does not want their child reading a certain book, that parent should also have the right to speak up and the schools should not mandate that all children must read that book. Why not have a suggested list of books that are age appropriate and offer parents the right to select materials that they deem appropriate. That approach puts the onus on parents to understand what their child is reading and offers options.
I recently reread Orwell’s 1984. I also watched the movie. Let me be clear, I am not suggesting our government has gone as far as the government that is portrayed in this movie. However, during the Covid-19 pandemic, I was upset with how our government treated people that were against the vaccination. In Pennsylvania, Tom Wolfe, our governor, questioned your patriotism if you did not get vaccinated. On a national level, President Biden also singled out the non vaccinated as a group causing a problem. In MY OPINION, most of us should have been somewhat uneasy with this approach of dividing our nation into the vaccinated Americans and the group that was not vaccinated. I would call that divisive.
Jan, again – thank you!
One more thought… if each person, organizations, industries, regulated themselves from an ethical, moral, standpoint, maybe we wouldnt need so many government regulations, but history hasnt proven for that to be the case.
Women and minorities used to be not able to vote, children use to work in factories, the steel mills used to pollute. Either because of money or people in power these issues were controlled for the wrong reasons that government had to step in! You get my drift?
Hi Jan!
I just finished reading Tip and the Gipper by Chris Matthews. It was a really good read. A big takeaway from this book is that you can have differing views on the role of government and still be honorable.
Tip O’Neill, the Speaker of the House, would often describe himself as the “leader of the opposition party.” The Democratic Party under O’Neill, believed a bigger role for government was good. O’Neill truly believed that government could fix many of the problems we have in our society. Reagan, on the other hand, felt that government often caused more problems than it cured so the role of government should be more limited. Both believed in the need for government -the just viewed the scope of government differently.
For me, I am more on Reagan’s side but understand that there needs to be a “watchdog”. Like Reagan and O’Neill, people will differ on the scope of what is required.
Hi Jan! Hope you and your family are doing well after Hurricane Helene passed through Florida.
I have given your response some additional thought. I mentioned in a previous response that I recently read the book, Tip and the Gipper. It was crystal clear in the book that Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan viewed government very differently. Tip saw government as overall good while Reagan saw government as needed for many functions but not always great. I think you and I view government much the same as Tip and Reagan. You see government as overall good whereas I see it as important for doing certain functions for us but I would prefer a more limited role. I also seriously question the idea that politicians, be they left or right of center, are at all times looking to do what is right for the country. I see all people with great power as people that need to be monitored closely. History has shown us that government officials can be less than models of integrity.
One more thought: the idea of cancel culture is not new, its just a new label. What about all the people that were black listed during the McCarthy era? Just a thought…
The idea of cancel culture is not new, its just a new label. What about all the people that were black listed during the McCarthy era? Just a thought…
Hi Tom thanks for your response. I agree with you about the gun issue, also I think parents should play a role in education. If their child is reading a book they dont want them to read, bring it up with the teacher or principal. I dont agree with a mass banning of books by the state government. Also I agree about Covid vaccinations, they are a personal choice. However, there is a reason vaccinations for children in schools is mandatory.