A leftist corporate media reporter has been ruthlessly mocked after he attempted to warn the public about allowing a “tsunami of free expression.”
Lawrence Martin, a Canadian journalist with Canada’s establishment media outlet Globe and Mail, published an article denouncing the free speech Americans alternatively enjoy as a birthright.
Martin warned that the First Amendment is causing “excessive free speech” which he says “is a breeding ground for more Trumps.”
Since it was published Wednesday, Martin’s authoritarian article has been widely mocked online.
It was even ridiculed by one of the plaintiffs who sued Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration for pressuring social media companies to censor Americans.
Martin opens his article with excitement over the prospect that the U.S. Supreme Court might come down on the side of the Biden administration in Murthy v. Missouri.
Evidently accustomed to this style of overreach under the Trudeau regime, Martin, who once served as the Globe’s bureau chief in Washington, wrote:
“There was a bit of good news about the future of public discourse this week.
“The United States Supreme Court, even though stacked with right-wingers, sounded like it was ready to give the Biden administration the go-ahead to try to persuade social-media platforms not to put out content promoting nonsense about the presidential election, conspiracy theories about the pandemic and other assorted bilge and crackpottery.”
On Monday, the high court heard oral arguments concerning whether the Biden administration violated the Constitution when it pressured social media companies to censor and suppress Americans’ protected free speech.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed last year with a district court’s assessment that there was ample evidence of a “coordinated campaign” of unprecedented “magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life.”
U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty underscored that the Biden administration “used its power to silence the opposition.
“Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power.”
According to Martin, a ruling in favor of greater censorship of those views deemed undesirable by the powerful would “be a victory for regulation of the internet.”
Even if the Biden admin wins the battle, the corporate media reporter noted there is still a war to be won against an empowered American citizenry.
“The greater likelihood is that extremes of free speech will continue to be tolerated, creating a pathway for more Donald Trumps,” wrote Martin.
“The extremes came following the arrival of the internet and social media platforms.
“They created a tsunami of free expression.
“Despite the grumblings we still hear about the lack of free speech, these platforms gave more of it to the masses than anything ever before.”
Martin makes it abundantly clear why this is a problem:
“The masses were finally weaponized — not with arms, but with a communications instrument that empowered them against establishment forces like they had never been empowered before.”
“Would the rise of the hard right and Mr. Trump have been possible if the internet had been given guardrails?
“Not a chance,” wrote Martin.
“The internet gave him — before his account was suspended in 2021 — 88 million Twitter followers.
“With that came the freedom to circumvent traditional media and create an alternate universe.”
Martin further lamented that the internet has “undermined” the establishment media, which has repeatedly been exposed pushing consequential falsehoods and manipulating the public.
To “reverse the trend,” Martin advocates for “rigid regulation.”
However, he acknowledged that “the free speech lobby in the United States is as fierce as the gun lobby.”
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a tenured professor of medicine at Stanford University and co-author of “The Great Barrington Declaration,” is named as a plaintiff in Murthy v. Missouri.
In response to Martin’s article, Bhattacharya wrote:
“Dear @globeandmail, I’m sorry to report that your editorial page has been hacked.
“Or maybe it has been taken over by authoritarian blockheads who are publishing dangerous misinformation.
“One or the other. Respectfully Yours, Jay.”
Dear @globeandmail,
I'm sorry to report that your editorial page has been hacked. Or maybe it has been taken over by authoritarian blockheads who are publishing dangerous misinformation. One or the other.
Respectfully Yours,
Jay https://t.co/vWeVY2Bzb9— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) March 21, 2024
Others took to X to blast Martin over the claims.
Mike Benz, the executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, suggested Martin had “summarized 10 years of work in 10 words.”
“We all need to ask ourselves the question: are we engaging in ‘excessive’ free speech?” asked Dinesh D’Souza.
Canadian comedian Danny Polishchuk noted, “Really embarrassed about my country sometimes.”
“So excessive censorship is breeding ground for more Bidens?” wrote Zerohedge. “Fact check: true.”
Ezra Levant, the publisher of Canada’s Rebel News, indicated that Martin’s article “accurately reflects the establishment view in Canada.
“They have lost control of the national conversation and they’ll do anything to get it back — including Trudeau’s Bill C-63 that proposes life in prison for ‘hate.'”
Responding to the backlash, Martin tweeted, “Lest anyone get the wrong impression from the headline on today’s column, ah, no I do not oppose free speech.
“I support intelligent efforts, though not Trudeau’s legislation, to curb hate speech, child pornography, racism, promotion of violence etc. etc. on the internet.”
READ MORE – Canada to Sentence Citizens to ‘Life Imprisonment’ for ‘Hate‘
