Reporter’s Simple Question to Klobuchar Reveals Dark Intentions
In July 2021, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) introduced the “Health Misinformation Act of 2021” to the Senate. At a recent conference focused on the topic of “disinformation,” Klobuchar was asked a very simple question about this social media censorship bill, and the former presidential contender’s non answer said something very dark.
The “Disinformation and the Erosion of Democracy” conference was hosted by the Atlantic and the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics (IOP), and held from April 6-8.
In the opening address, the executive director of IOP, Zeenat Rahman, referred to the audience as “the next generation of leaders in public service.” Translation: this is a room full of future bureaucrats and lobbyists.
Addressing those in attendance, Rahman explained that, “this conference is motivated by the growing evidence that disinformation, turbocharged by social media algorithms and manipulated by malign actors, is a threat to democracies everywhere … our goals for this conference are to focus on the scope of the problem and sources, but also its potential solutions.”
Rahman seems to have an excellent understanding of the problem. But she doesn’t seem aware of the fact that many of the sources for these problems were probably attending her event.
During the conference, Sen. Klobuchar was asked about her “Health Misinformation Act” by a reporter with the Chicago Thinker, Evita Duffy. And the answer revealed the dark intentions behind the bill.
Duffy asked, “If I were to say there are only two sexes, male and female, would that be considered misinformation that you think should be banned speech on social media platforms?”
Klobuchar replied, “I am not going to get into what misinformation,” referring to what information would be deemed “misinformation.”
The refusal to answer such a basic question generates, in hydra-like fashion, a number of new questions. Klobuchar isn’t simply a senator supporting a bill; she introduced the bill.
The reason she didn’t answer the question directly isn’t that she didn’t know; it’s that she knows exactly how the bill will be used.
We are now being told that to defend our democracy from misinformation — self-awareness check — we need to pass a bill that curtails free speech. And if there are any questions about the specifics, the government officials who are supposed to represent us in Congress don’t have to answer.
Essentially, you get the sales pitch. But the Q & A is canceled, if you have a real question.
Klobuchar’s bill states that, “under certain circumstances,” an “interactive computer service provider” that allows what the current regime deems “health misinformation” on their platform will be “treated as the publisher or speaker of that misinformation.”
What the bill proposes is that government should be able to open social media companies up to serious lawsuits, making them impossible to run, if they do not censor the way they are told to. So, goodbye, Gab. Good luck, Elon. Trump? Sorry, sir. You’ve been cancelled.
Incidentally, are there any senators planning to introduce a “Pentagon Misinformation Act of 2022” or a “Hunter Biden Misinformation Act”? Unlikely.
Keep in mind that these platforms have banned a sitting U.S. president. The control over politics and society that will come from giving unelected government officials the power to destroy competition on behalf of government-approved companies is unacceptable in a free country.
Think about the public consciousness before the internet and compare it with today. That’s what this bill seeks to accomplish. As Duffy put it during an interview on Fox News, this is about regaining “gatekeeping power.”
Remember Wikileaks? Remember the 2016 election? Well, forget it. It’s over if they get their way here.
As with so many Trojan horses we’ve seen enter this country, this one comes with a team of public relations experts and copywriters — think “Patriot Act.”
The bill states that, “Since the declaration of the public health emergency described in paragraph (2), misinformation and disinformation relating to COVID–19 have spread at an alarming rate, which has — (A) hindered the public response efforts of Federal, State, local, and indigenous leaders; and (B) endangered lives.”
The obvious concern here lies in the fact that so much of what was censored over the past few years by Big Tech oligarchs and unelected bureaucrats is accepted as fact today.
The “misinformation” of that time might have solved many problems and saved many lives, but — make no mistake about it — Americans were denied their right to free speech in the public square.
And the social media platforms are the public square. Democrats imagine some connection between a musket and an AR-15 when they advocate for Second Amendment restrictions, but are unable to see that social media is now the square where people gather in public to discuss important issues.
Tragically, some in our government now seek to codify the enormous power grabs they’ve made under the cover of an uproar they themselves caused. The difference between truth and lies will soon come down to the signatures of 50 former intelligence officials if this kind of legislation — and this perspective on governance — isn’t checked by those who still care about the rights of citizens in this nation.
Klobuchar’s bill, as it admits in the title, is a subtle attempt to control the spread of information. In what universe has that, even among the left’s dwindling number of rational actors, been considered “American”?