The past few years have witnessed a concerning trend: increasing support for censorship from media outlets and political figures. This is particularly troubling given the recent court ruling that declared the Biden administration's actions as a massive infringement on free speech. Following this decision, prominent voices in the media, instead of celebrating the victory for free speech, expressed apprehension about the potential spread of "disinformation." This sentiment, chillingly articulated by CNN's Phil Mattingly, suggests a preference for government-directed censorship in the name of public health.

Mattingly's statement that tech companies complying with government censorship demands "makes sense" raises serious questions. This acquiescence to authority, especially regarding the suppression of dissenting opinions, is a dangerous precedent. The government's track record on these issues is far from perfect. Many individuals who questioned the official stance on measures like mask mandates were censored, despite the evolving scientific understanding of their effectiveness.

The CDC's initial resistance to mask mandates, followed by a complete reversal, highlights the politicization of these issues. Critics who questioned the necessity of school and business closures were also silenced, despite evidence from other countries suggesting alternative approaches. Now, the potential negative consequences of these measures, such as developmental problems in children and declining academic performance, are becoming apparent.

Numerous studies now question the effectiveness of widespread masking. While these studies are subject to ongoing debate, the fact remains that dissenting voices were suppressed, preventing a robust discussion about the scientific evidence. The same holds true for the lab leak theory of COVID-19's origin, initially dismissed as a conspiracy theory but now considered a plausible explanation. Even questioning prominent figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci resulted in censorship.

The media's quiet acknowledgment of the evolving science on masks and school closures, without acknowledging their own role in silencing dissenting opinions, is a troubling oversight. The justification for censorship often boils down to a circular argument: censorship is necessary because certain ideas are deemed harmful. This logic has historically been used to suppress dissent and critical thinking. The concerning shift is that influential media figures now embrace this rationale, advocating for compliance with government directives on permissible speech under the guise of public protection.