Twitter’s change in policy — to allow opinions about Covid-19 contrary to the mainstream government narrative — has been condemned across the spectrum of the American Left, from politicians to their allies in the media, liberal nonprofits, and in the American Medical Association (AMA).
Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) roundly condemned Twitter’s new policy favorable to free speech. “The misinformation is beyond dangerous, it’s potentially deadly to a lot of people who may be unable to see through a lot of the misinformation that’s out there,” Blumenthal told reporters Tuesday. Apparently, Blumenthal feels that his constituents and other Americans must be protected by elitists such as himself, and that they cannot be trusted to interpret information for themselves.
But this attack upon the concept of free speech is not confined to progressive politicians such as Blumenthal.
Others weighed in against the new Twitter policy implemented since tycoon Elon Musk took over the company. Twitter, as of November 23, is no longer censoring opinions about Covid-19 and the vaccines, which have made billions for some drug companies. More than 11,000 Twitter accounts have been suspended since the outbreak of the Covid-19 virus, for various reasons. Even Donald Trump, while he was president of the United States, saw his account suspended over his comments on the January 6 protests.
Before Trump was reinstated on Twitter (who has, so far, not taken advantage of his reinstatement, preferring to post on his own social media platform Truth Social instead), Musk took a vote of Twitter users, asking them whether he should let Trump back on. A slim majority cast their vote in favor of allowing Trump back on the site, but this raises a serious question.
Do we now put liberty up to a vote?
While Musk probably had some good reasons to leave the Trump issue up to Twitter users, this sets a precedent. Should only majority-approved speech be allowed in America?
Apparently, many on the Left do not believe in free speech. In Politico’s story on Twitter no longer censoring contrary opinions on Covid-19 and vaccines, they said that Musk has pressed for “free speech” above all else on the platform. One should note that “free speech” was in quotation marks, as though it was questionable whether free speech is something to be defended if it runs contrary to the liberal agenda.
Jack Resneck, president of the American Medical Association (AMA), also opposed the free speech move. “Nowhere near enough was being done to stamp out medical misinformation on social media previously; but this step, along with re-platforming voices who wish to sow confusion and increase mistrust in medicine, will do more harm.”
In other words, the president of the AMA thinks more censorship is the right course of action when it comes to what he terms “medical misinformation.” But history offers many examples of the medical establishment asserting this or that as settled medical science, only to reverse itself later. After all, during the late 18th century, the finest medical minds of the day thought bleeding patients was a good thing — and it probably cost George Washington his life in December of 1799.
And there are many more modern examples that could be cited, as well.
But this is not surprising, as the AMA has been taken over by progressives. For example, the AMA has recently urged physicians and other healthcare professionals to use woke language. For example, they urge doctors and others in the medical field to used terms such as oppressed, rather than vulnerable. Of course, oppressed is Marxist language. Even Atlantic magazine said the AMA-promoted guidance is “rife with specious reasoning, questionable assumptions, and dubious judgments, all presented in an effort to get doctors talking like ideologues of the social-justice left.”
Instead of calling for censorship of contrary medical opinions, the AMA should have been championing the autonomy of medical doctors to treat patients, according to their own experience. For example, medical doctors were told by government agencies and their own medical hierarchies not to use certain drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine, to treat Covid-19. Some were threatened with losing hospital privileges, or even their licenses.
But hydroxychloroquine is one of the safest — and cheapest — drugs on the market. It has been available for more than half a century. While it is generally used to treat malaria or lupus, its safety and efficacy for other ailments led many to consider it to treat Covid-19. Using a drug for other purposes is known as off-label use. This means that, once a drug is cleared for safety, it can be used — at a doctor’s discretion — to treat any number of sicknesses. This is a very common practice, little questioned except when dealing with Covid-19.
Yet, if I put this information on Twitter, before Musk took it over, it would most likely be considered “misinformation” and censored.
One opponent of the new Twitter free-speech policy is Jenna Sherman, the program manager of Meedan, a health information nonprofit. Meedan is very left-wing, supporting “gender-affirming care and abortion.” Sherman said continued spread of what she termed “misinformation” might lead Congress to terminate Section 230, which protects tech companies from liability. Of course, that would require a majority vote of the membership of Congress.
One can hope that there are still enough members of Congress who take their oaths seriously to block such a move — you know, that oath to follow the Constitution of the United States, which includes the First Amendment, which states Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.
