While some say this more aggressive use of power will come back to haunt us as Democrats regain these same powers and use them in turn, conservatives have already been silenced and punished. There is little more that they can do, and a little retribution is more than well deserved.
“You have unleashed the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” then-Senator Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told a crowd of abortion rights advocates in 2020 after naming two Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the hallowed steps of the Supreme Court itself. At the time, Senator Schumer was widely seen as threatening conservative members of the Court who might be amenable to overturning Roe v. Wade while a case to that effect was undergoing oral arguments. Afterwards, he admitted that “I should not have used the words I used yesterday. They did not come out the way I intended to,” but rationalized the threat by noting “I’m from Brooklyn, we speak in strong language” and explaining that he felt “passionately” about the issue as though he was the only politician from New York and the only passionate advocate on either side. “So, yes, I am angry. The women of America are angry. And, yes, we will continue to fight for a woman’s right to choose. I will continue to fight for the women of America.” Though the comment was widely condemned by Republicans and garnered a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, it passed largely without notice in the mainstream media, an occurrence that was reported on, but for which no deeper meaning or motive was ascribed, much less whether it was appropriate to try to intimidate a separate yet equal branch of government in the middle of making a decision that was all their own and over which he had no influence. Three years earlier, Senator Schumer, then the Minority Leader appeared to similarly threaten incoming President Donald Trump for his dealings with the intelligence community, saying “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community—they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” Once again, the media reported on the statement, but found no greater significance to it, expressing zero curiosity as to how the President of the United States, who is Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and is supposed to be in charge of the intelligence agencies, should possibly fear them or even what kind of tactics he was referring to. What are these six ways they can knee cap a President? Does anyone care? Did anyone care?
Fast forward to today, and I’m reminded of both the Senator’s comments and the media’s reaction. Last week, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr expressed his ire about talk show host Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on the Charlie Kirk assassination and explained how the government of which he is a part and in area where he actually has purview may intervene. “In some quarters, there is a very concerted effort to try to lie to the American people about the nature, as you indicated, of one of the most significant newsworthy public interest acts that we’ve seen in a long time.” “They have a license granted by us at the FCC,” he continued stating the facts of the matter at hand, “and with that, comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest. And we can get into some ways that we’ve been trying to reinvigorate the public interest and some changes that we’ve seen, but frankly when you see stuff like this, I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” Rather than acknowledging the FCC’s role in granting broadcast licenses to network television stations and the obligations they have to serve the public interest for the privilege of using the public airwaves, Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media had no difficulty whatsoever labeling this a threat and decrying fascist intimidation tactics. When Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro was asked if President Trump was intentionally stifling debate, he responded “Without question. They’re trying to stifle dissent….[Trump] made clear that he wants to look at the licenses and certifications for media outlets if they are attacking him.” Senator Chris Murphy claimed “That’s censorship. That’s state speech control. That’s not America.” Senator Schumer himself called for Chairman Carr to be fired, calling him “one of the greatest threats to free speech America has ever seen.” “What Brendan Carr is doing is despicable. What he did to Jimmy Kimmel, he is doing to person after person, network after network, intimidating them and threatening them. He is one of the greatest threats to free speech America has ever seen. He should resign immediately. Trump should fire him.”
In the intervening years, however, they had no such concerns beyond the Senator’s own threats and various tantrums. On May 29, 2018, conservative actress and comedian Roseanne Barr tweeted, “muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj,” in reference to Valerie Jarret, a black female advisor to former President Barack Obama. Though she apologized, saying “I apologize to Valerie Jarrett and to all Americans. I am truly sorry for making a bad joke about her politics and her looks. I should have known better,” she was fired for her resurgent reboot of the sitcom Roseanne and dropped by her talent agency, effectively cancelled. Ironically, Mr. Kimmel himself said ABC “did the right thing” and praised the speed at which they fired her. He was not alone as prominent Democrats also applauded the move. “Thank you, @ABCNetwork. You did the right thing,” tweeted Representative John Lewis. “There is not any room in our society for racism or bigotry.” Representative Adriano Espaillat claimed, “Thank you @ABC for standing up to reaffirm that racism and bigotry will NOT be tolerated.” Despite some exhaustive searching, I could not find a single Democrat or media outlet who worried about censorship at the time, far from it, and to some extent rightly so. While I believe she should have been given a chance to apologize, the comments were repulsive and free speech is not a substitute for public decorum, especially for highly paid public figures. The closest I could come was the BBC, who ran an article that attempted to summarize both sides, “Roseanne Barr’s tweet and shelved sitcom sparks debate.” In another irony, one of Ms. Barr’s defenders cited Mr. Kimmel, who had previously mocked First Lady Melania Trump’s accent. “Jimmy Kimmel mocks Melania Trump’s accent and nobody at ABC got fired! Doesn’t seem so bad to make fun of a woman’s accent if she is white, I guess.” In October 2018, less than five months later, prominent Republican political commentator Megyn Kelly was fired from NBC News – though they had to pay her almost $70 million to do so — for noting that she didn’t understand why black face was considered out of bounds for certain Halloween costumes because it was “okay when I was a kid.” Once again, no prominent Democrat or media outlet wondered if censorship was afoot in America. Instead, PBS chose to focus on her struggles in the time slot, something equally true yet completely left out of most conversation regarding Mr. Kimmel’s suspension, claiming “She largely floundered with that soft-news focus” and “strains continued behind the scenes” while noting that her ratings were down. The New Yorker went so far as to claim “NBC’s Firing of Megyn Kelly Is as Cynical as Her Hiring Was.” “The grand experiment is over, and it failed spectacularly. On Friday, in a one-sentence memo, NBC confirmed that the ‘Megyn Kelly Today’ hour of its morning-show program has been cancelled, and that its host will exit the network. The announcement, hardly shocking, comes after a tumultuous week for both the company and its star.”
Of course, it was not only celebrities who were targeted. During the 2020 election itself, the federal government assigned 80 FBI agents to police Twitter alone, deplatforming everyone from the most insignificant users posting jokes about election day being on a Wednesday to The New York Post for real reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptops with healthcare professionals who disagreed with our response to the coronavirus pandemic in between. Ultimately, the situation climaxed with a sitting President, that same Donald Trump being deplatformed after January 6. “After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence,” Twitter itself wrote two days later on January 8. “In the context of horrific events this week, we made it clear on Wednesday that additional violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially result in this very course of action.” They were supposedly reacting to two tweets, one to his supporters, “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” and another noting he would not be attending incoming President Biden’s inauguration, “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” Though neither of these tweets violated any known term of service, the company placed them in a broader context, claiming “these two Tweets must be read in the context of broader events in the country and the ways in which the President’s statements can be mobilized by different audiences, including to incite violence, as well as in the context of the pattern of behavior from this account in recent weeks.” Facebook quickly followed suit, and once again, few had a thing to say about free speech. Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, called it an “excellent step.” “A fitting end to a legacy of spewing hate and vitriol,” he continued. “President Trump incited the violent riots at the Capitol using social media & paid the price.” Eric Naing, a spokesman for Muslim Advocates, insisted Twitter “is showing real leadership.” “As Twitter notes, letting Trump continue to post tweets, Facebook posts and YouTube videos for his white nationalist supporters risks ‘further incitement of violence.’ Now it is up to Facebook and Google/YouTube to follow Twitter’s lead.” According to polls taken at the time, 89% of Democrats supported the ban with many saying it was over due, showing how little regard they had for the free speech rights of a President of the United States, much less an average citizen, and offering prelude to the vitriol they would spew at Charlie Kirk while he lay dying.
After President Trump left office, the federal, state, and local governments took what we might call a “whole of government” approach to making Senator Schumer’s fears come true. In addition to being deplatformed, he was indicted over 90 times, facing hundreds of years in jail, and subject to multiple civil suits that wracked up well over $500 million in supposed damages. Democrats and progressives also tried to have him forcibly removed from that ballot. Like the deplatforming itself, these moves were widely cheered by Democrats and their allies in the media with no progressive politician I could find expressing any concerns. Instead, most like Representative Joaquin Castor were “glad to see that Donald Trump has been indicted.” Overall, there were little, if any questions about whether or not this was political retribution though all of the actors involved were President Trump’s political opponents. There was no talk that the entire effort might have been part of a broader intimidation campaign aimed at President Trump’s supporters, though their ability to vote for their candidate of choice would have been silenced if they had their way. There was nary a mention that these governments might well have been out of control, though many of the crimes featured novel interpretations that appeared to magically transform misdemeanors into felonies and multiply like gremlins to add additional counts and subsequent sentencing. When President Trump’s home was raided by the FBI and they rifled through his wife’s underwear drawer, no one cared if this might have a chilling effect on conservative speech. On the contrary, the cause, in their view, was righteous because this is what Donald Trump and his supporters deserved. While Senator Schumer was referring to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh when he claimed they’d unleashed the whirlwind and would pay the price, he certainly felt the same about President Trump. The only problem from his perspective: Neither of the Justices were intimidated, nor was the President or his supporters. On the contrary, it is Senator Schumer and their allies who are now reaping the whirlwind they have sowed, over and over again, against targets important and insignificant. While there are some who say this more aggressive use of power by a Republican will one day come back to haunt us as Democrats regain these same powers and use them in turn, I am reminded of former President George W. Bush’s quip during a debate with Vice President Al Gore in 2000, when he was questioned on his opposition to hate crime laws after a racially motivated killing in Texas. Then Governor Bush said, “It’s going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death.” Conservatives have already been silenced and punished. There is little more that they can do, and a little retribution is more than well deserved.
Confessions of a Conservative Atheist 