Mollie Hemingway Unleashes Fury on the Censorship Syndicate
As the outcry from the liberal side grows louder in response to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s bold move to eliminate speech censorship on his platforms, the marketplace of ideas now gets the chance to determine which perspectives thrive. This decision met widespread discussion on Fox News Sunday, where Mollie Hemingway, Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist, delivered a crushing critique against entities invested in online speech suppression.
Witness Hemingway as she dissects the issue with precision:
“JUAN WILLIAMS: Wow, the Russians and the Chinese must be just celebrating. Great. They’ll put out nonsense. So I think- you think about the damage the internet has done to our children, to our lives, I just think it’s- I just think they have misdirected. A lot of people are being fooled to think it’s a censorship argument when in reality we need, in fact, some regulation of what is the Wild, Wild West on our computers.
MOLLIE HEMINGWAY: So, in fact, Mark Zuckerberg said that what they’re getting rid of is the left-wing so-called fact-checking enterprise in which left-wing groups censored speech and debate against conservatives. There will still be moderation but it’ll be done through free speech – through the free market of free speech where users of these platforms can themselves check facts and information. But it is interesting that people think that if you want to – if you want to please Democrats, you engage in massive censorship of American speech and debate. And if you want to please Republicans, you embrace free speech. I think that explains a lot about the last election results.”
The concept of “disinformation” has been exploited, often translated to mean “anything the left disagrees with or finds politically damaging,” and has been wielded as a weapon to silence political discourse. We have not forgotten how Hunter Biden’s laptop was hastily branded “Russian disinformation” and systematically censored, only later to be validated. This suppression of politically inconvenient truths yielded dire consequences. Our 2020 study revealed that nearly one in six Biden voters (17%) confessed they might have reconsidered their support, had they been informed about key news stories. Such a revelation could have flipped all six swing states secured by Joe Biden, paving the way for Donald Trump’s comfortable reelection.
Facebook played a pivotal role in this suppression. Fast forward four years, and Zuckerberg appears to have completely reversed these policies.
Prominent Fox resident liberal, Juan Williams, lamented these changes, suggesting they potentially open up avenues for Chinese and Russian interference and thus should be regulated.
“If you want to please Democrats, you engage in massive censorship of American speech and debate and if you want to please Republicans you embrace free speech. I think that explains a lot about the last election results” – @MZHemingway on #FoxNewsSunday pic.twitter.com/xmqq9Xlmb5
— Brent Baker 🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) January 12, 2025
Hemingway dismantles this call for censorship, pulling back the curtain on the corrupt enterprise dubbed “fact-checking,” which sought to stifle free speech for millions. In illustrating the partisan nature of these speech constraints, a compelling question lingered:
Bet if Harris had won old Zuck wouldn’t be making these changes!