David French, former 'conservative' turned leftwing activist, invokes the old 'it's only censorship if the government does it' canard. This uses deflection to help him avoid confronting the implications of Musk's release of docs pertaining to Twitter's collusion with progressives, and perhaps even Democrats, and suppression of dissenting posts.
When it comes to French's claim, anyone who went through college in the 1980s knows that's bunk. At least according to liberals of the day. Much was the time that my liberal teachers and professors spent declaring Big Brother fascist censorship whenever anyone - private interest or otherwise - tried to hinder
liberal free speech.
I recall an old textbook from a Sociology class I took. In the section on freedoms and rights and free speech, it bent over backwards to say it's not just government that defines censorship. Censorship, as they stay, starts in the home. The minute you try to punish or oppress someone's attempt to express himself, that's censorship. It even had a handy sidebar article about the old Fantastic Beatles Boycott as an example. No government there, but as much naked censorship as anything Nazi Germany ever tried to do.
Of course like all things liberal, that's simply one more 'here today, gone later today' approach to principles and truth claims. As soon as liberals get caught doing something they condemn, they simply change the rules. Remember what my sons said about debating liberalism being like a game of Monopoly with someone who keeps throwing pots and pans at you?
What they mean is, liberalism understands Monopoly rules this way:
- If liberalism owns a hotel on Boardwalk and you land on Boardwalk, then you owe liberalism $2000.
- If, however, you own a hotel on Boardwalk and liberalism lands on Boardwalk, then you owe liberalism $2000.
And if you protest the obvious cheating, in come the pots and pans. It's how the Left plays the game. I'm fast becoming convinced that liberalism appeals to the amoral, the one with no core values, beliefs, or principles. The one who says yes when convenient, no when not convenient. Juror #7. Guilty. Not guilty. Who cares, just get me to the game.
Some say they're disappointed in French. For me, a person who can embrace such naked mendacity as has been the food and oxygen of post-war liberalism is likely someone whose values and principles were never deeply rooted in the first place. Which is something we're confronting every day as more and more who once waved the values of the Christian West like a war banner now trample that banner underfoot and happily toss it in the can.