The ruling elite believed that Twitter’s August 2021 decision to ban journalist and novelist Alex Berenson permanently was entirely acceptable. Indeed, the vast majority of responses to his removal consisted of mocking the lawsuit he eventually brought to compel Twitter to restore him.
Berenson has not only been exonerated since his expulsion, but it has also come to light that his silence was the consequence of a White House request.
Berenson filed suit against Twitter and is currently in the investigation stage. The files he has obtained show how the government is continually trying to stifle free speech on matters of public interest. It was at this time that the federal government, along with many states and cities, were utilizing every conceivable coercive method at their fingertips to force Americans to take the Covid vaccinations, despite Berenson’s criticisms that they were ineffective and possibly hazardous. Therefore, his words were considered radical and had to be muzzled to prevent further casualties during the pandemic. President Biden has been acting the part of a fascist by utilizing large corporations to silence political opponents while flippantly labeling them “semi-fascists.” Berenson’s suspension from Twitter was, therefore, a blatant injustice.
His ban came at a period when advocating for vaccination requirements was both standard practice and a mark of progressive virtue. The media coverage by Berenson was seen as a form of dissident agitation and was deemed not simply imprudent but completely unacceptable.
A piece on Tucker Carlson’s show featuring Berenson was deemed “dishonest and dangerous” by The Washington Post. In April of 2021, he was featured in an article titled “The Pandemic’s Wrongest Man” in The Atlantic. Thus, Twitter’s silent reinstatement of him this month, which should have been highlighted as a significant vindication for Berenson, was mostly overlooked by the same establishment media that had cast him off as an extremist lunatic who was damaging the public.
Two major points can be drawn from this new information.
First, it is time for everyone to admit that Berenson’s once-dismissed concerns about the limitations of Covid vaccinations were, in large part, justified.
The second issue is how the government exploited a health crisis to trample civil liberties by using the might of Big Tech.
Before he was suspended, Berenson tweeted, “It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it – at best – as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity.”
Was banned for: “It doesn’t stop infection. Or transmission. Don’t think of it as a vaccine. Think of it – at best – as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity.”
— Peter ⚒ Spina | Gold & Silver Maximalist (@goldseek) July 12, 2022
The Atlantic published an article last week, basically admitting that he is correct. It’s absurd to think that him voicing his concerns about a topic where much remains to be discovered warrants government action and suppression.
You don’t have to be an anti-vaxxer to realize that in the United States, the government is not designed to have the authority to shut down arguments, even when vaccines can be helpful, especially for people who are most at risk owing to age or other health conditions.
However, the fact that nearly all of the recommendations and warnings issued by the public health authorities at the pandemic’s peak were ultimately proven inaccurate casts doubt on the argument that conventional rules don’t apply during public health emergencies. It is absurd and dangerous to democracy that the current administration was able to compel the regulators of the 21st-century town square to suppress controversial speech.
Whether or not Berenson will be able to sue the Biden presidency for forcing Twitter to remove him from what has become the main area for modern public discourse is unclear. However, the consequences of these crimes going unpunished are immeasurable.
If we are to keep the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech intact, presidents who make fraudulent claims of “damage” to justify their demands that critics of their policies be de-platformed should be held to a higher standard.