When Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September 2020 and President Trump began moving to replace her, the Left was at their typical level of rage. I was walking along Main Street in my hometown of Grapevine, Texas one morning shortly after the justice’s passing and was struck by a perspective of her career that I decided to tweet:
Just a reminder that Ruth Bader Ginsburg could have casually retired at 80 yrs old under Obama and been replaced by an ultra progressive in their 40s . . . but they chose not to.
It’s not Republicans’ or Trump’s fault that they get the opportunity to push through a new justice.
I thought very little of this tweet because it was simply sharing my opinion, until a little more than a week later, I saw my opinion blurred out, flagged as “false” and “missing context” on Instagram. I was then informed by people who wanted to follow my account that they had been given the following prompt when they clicked to follow me:
From that point forward, every account that posted a screenshot of my Justice Ginsburg replacement tweet would be given the same treatment on the platform.
Unbeknownst to me, USA Today had “fact-checked” my opinion—then that “fact check” was used by Facebook and Instagram to restrict accounts on their platforms. The “fact check” article claims that I actually lied when I shared my opinion that Barack Obama could have replaced Ginsburg with an ultra-progressive, had she simply retired.
The same treatment was given to a tweet of mine in May 2022 by a Tegna broadcasting “fact check” group called Verify This. I tweeted:
Johnny Depp v Amber Heard trial = NONSTOP WALL-TO-WALL COVERAGE!!!
Ghislaine Maxwell trial = an occasional courtroom sketch or mention.
The “fact checker” in their article stated this was “FALSE” because “THE QUESTION” was “Do all courts have the same camera policy?” They went on to make a TikTok video where the “fact checker” concludes that, I’m suggesting “pretty suspicious reasons” why the coverage is different.
Both examples above are how the modern “fact-checking” regime works. They don’t like your opinion, so they add “context” that wasn’t there in the first place, then disprove the context they added, knowing you will be flagged and possibly suspended from social media.
It seems impossible, but this is how modern-day fascism has crept into our society. When considering where we have landed as a society, I always think of the book-burning scene in Indiana Jones. In the scene, Nazi soldiers are throwing every book they disagree with on a massive fire and celebrating the destruction of opposing opinions. Modern-day book burning doesn’t look as dirty. In my case, two young female “journalists” named Mariah and Kyley attempted to eliminate my opinion from society, most likely while sipping on a $7 latte in a trendy coffee shop in Brooklyn.
Instead of heaping my writings on a large bonfire with others, they added their own context to my 280 characters or less, then published the disproving of that added context to millions of viewers from their major media outlets, all while fully aware that Meta would use their false context to flag and even ban people with whom they disagree.
Instead of going back to their barracks, it’s off to happy hour at that cute craft cocktail bar after they finish their elimination of the opposing opinions for the day. More effective than one fascist soldier merely burning a book—hundreds, if not thousands of people will be silenced by the results of their work.
Unlike most of those who are frequently silenced, I am fortunate enough to have outlets that will continue to amplify my voice. But for many others, they may feel intimidated, worried, and afraid to share their opinions ever again.
There aren’t many ways to rectify these actions by the regime in our time. Rogan O’Handley, known as DC Draino on Instagram began bringing lawsuits with the help of Harmeet Dhillon against social media companies and the state of California for censoring his opinions after the 2020 election. I believe he’s onto something.
Ultimately, a fact-check article against the opinion of someone like myself or O’Handley is an attempt to smear or defame us with the ultimate goal of eliminating our voices from society. The object is far worse when strategies are turned against those who aren’t political commentators for a living. In their cases, it’s an attempt at getting them fired from their jobs, simply for sharing an opinion.
What can be done? Perhaps it’s time for class action lawsuits against these major media companies and the reporters who feel empowered to cancel others’ free speech with their own opinions. The Mariahs and Kyleys of the world are modern-day book burners—and aside from calling out their lies, which I have done multiple times on the platforms I still have—the court system may provide the only civil solution to counter their censorious behavior.
