Covid Censorship Proved to Be Deadly
Our commentary in today's Wall Street Journal.
See our commentary in today’s Wall Street Journal.
Covid Censorship Proved to Be Deadly: Government and social-media companies colluded to stifle dissenters who turned out to be right.
On July 4, federal judge Terry Doughty issued a temporary injunction against numerous government agencies and individuals from coercing or collaborating with social-media and third party groups to censor legal speech. Others will cover the important legal and Constitutional issues. Here, we show that the Censorship Industrial Complex is already having a profound real world impact, most obviously in the world’s response to Covid.
The article is for Wall Street Journal subscribers. I’ll post the entire article in 30 days. Meantime, if you’d like the full text, write me at bret -at- entropyeconomics.com.
Brett, This is one of the best essays on the consequences of the Censorship Industrial Complex I've read yet. I wrote my own Substack article recommending your story. I also see where "Citizen Kane" at Citizen Free Press linked to your story. That always adds a ton of extra readers.
Keep up the great work! - Bill Rice, Jr.
https://billricejr.substack.com/p/covid-censorship-proved-to-be-deadly?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Woah, you broke the WSJ barrier! (H/T CFP.) As far as I know, this is the first non-dismissive mention of a Covid-19 vax-harm claim published by this otherwise censorious/mum-on-that-topic publication. (Correct me if I'm wrong if there have been previous ones.)
For why it matters so much to me, see my "Adjunct Suppressors," my protest against conservative silence on this issue generally, but specifically, in one of the arenas I know best, that of academic conservatives. The Claremont Institute's American Mind site is target no. one in my piece, but the WSJ has been guilty of EVERYTHING I accuse the Claremont editors of, and yet with the far, far, far greater shame of being a NEWSPAPER directly charged (and empowered to) inform the public on a daily basis. https://pomocon.substack.com/p/adjunct-suppressors
The WSJ should now explain why they were mum on this specific aspect--i.e., vax-harm claims--of Covid-Policy debates. Next to no kudos to them for doing the right thing at least 18 stinkin' months after they first should have, and without any public admission of their change of editorial policy.