- The Washington Times - Monday, April 12, 2021

Over the weekend, Twitter censors stepped in to protect Black Lives Matter.

Reports surfaced BLM co-founder and self-described Marxist Patrisse Khan-Cullors purchased a $1.4 million home in a secluded area of Los Angeles, where the black population is less than 2% Black. Moreover, there was speculation Ms. Khan-Cullors used BLM fundraising monies to purchase the real estate.

After the news broke, the head of Black Lives Matter Greater New York City, called for an “independent investigation” to audit how the global network spends its donations.

Jason Whitlock, a Black sports critic and vocal BLM detractor, posted a link to a story about Ms. Khan-Cullors and was promptly censored by Twitter. His tweet simply disappeared.

“The controversy is illustrative of the age of Internet censors. Tweets, and in some cases Twitter accounts, vanish without explanation,” lawyer Jonathan Turley wrote in a blog.

Twitter is notorious for not responding to media inquiries over such censorship and even less forthcoming on the decision-making process behind such decisions. If Whitlock was expressing his contempt for the purchase, it is core political speech,” and therefore protected, Turley wrote.

Twitter only responded that the tweet violated its nebulous “Twitter rules” — basically one of their monitors felt it offensive, leaping to the defense of Ms. Khan-Cullors, who, as a public figure, can and should be held to public criticism. 

Earlier last week, YouTube deleted a video of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis holding a roundtable with a group of physicians and scientists critical of state lockdown measures.

The video provided a window into the thinking behind Gov. DeSantis’ coronavirus policies – why he refused to issue a mask mandate, decided to open the Sunshine State’s schools last fall, and allow restaurants and bars to operate at full capacity. 

Yet YouTube decided the content of the video was harmful and yanked it from its platform.
It told The Wall Street Journal it removed the video “because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

YouTube cited part of the video where Harvard biostatistician Martin Kulldorff said children didn’t need to wear masks. Yet The Journal was quick to point out the panelists’ opposition to children wearing masks doesn’t contradict the World Health Organization’s recommendations that state “children aged 5 years and under should not be required to wear masks” and that “the decision to use masks for children aged 6-11” depends on the situation.

“Even the most committed lockdown and mask hawk should be outraged that YouTube is banishing videos that bear directly on democratic accountability, including taxpayer-funded public hearings,” The Journal wrote of YouTube’s decision.

The mainstream media and liberal politicians claim Big Tech bias doesn’t exist. Perhaps that’s because they’re directly benefiting from the censorship. 

After all, Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez continues to publicly urge her supporters to report critics on social media who share “misleading information” about her in an attempt to get ordinary citizens banned.

It’s also notable that Big Tech’s bans and censorship is only applied one way — toward conservatives. Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Twitter handle has been suspended several times, without reason. She was most recently deplatformed after tweeting “He is Risen” on Easter Day. 

The platform said the suspension was “an error” and not related to that post — and her account was back online after 12 hours. 


Big Tech’s censorship has caught the eye of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who advocated last week for treating social media platforms as a common carrier, which could trigger regulation and accountability. Multiple bills are being considered in Congress.

As reporter Bari Weiss wrote on Substack: “When speech got digitized, the town square got privatized and the First Amendment got euthanized. If you can’t speak online … how do you really have a free speech right in this country any more?”

Sign up for Daily Opinion Newsletter

Manage Newsletters

Copyright © 2021 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide