Fireside Chat: Is Censorship Wise?

            Winston Churchill once said that:

“A man does what he must – in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures – and that is the basis of all human morality.”

When we speak of censorship, we are talking about millions of people censoring themselves for the sake of the few but vocal who claim a protected class. When this vocal minority hears what they disagree with, they immediately assume that someone is attacking their race, nationality, sexual preference, or a combination of all three. When we witness these accusations, peer pressure tells the majority to believe the accusers. Instead of waiting for the evidence to support the claim, the media immediately cast blame on Bret Kavanaugh, who was vindicated due to the lack of evidence; there are Americans to this day who believe a serial rapist resides in the Supreme Court. Despite the entire press conference being on YouTube for all the world to see, Donald Trump is misquoted by CNN, MSNBC, and ABC, saying “there were very fine people on both sides” in Charlottesville. By building cases based on conjecture, the rule of law does not stand a chance. In the kingdom of the vision impaired, the partially sighted person is fully empowered. If the mainstream news refuses to report, it is up to the people to acquire sources for themselves. It is doubtful that any of this will occur because censorship divides us by race, wealth, and nationality, all hoping to enrich the protected class itself.