I was reading an article in the Atlantic. The author was Renee DiResta, a self-described advocate for truth and free speech. As with most of those so-called protectors of our right to free speech that sit on the left side of the aisle, she is a very strong advocate for censorship. Her target this time is Elon Musk and his takeover of Twitter. She claims that Twitter was designed to be and had evolved into a true platform of free speech, albeit with some limitations. Musk, she opines, will turn it back into a hate-filled platform used to spread all manner of hatred, bigotry, terrorism, and unrest.

In the mind of the progressive leftist, banning certain types of free speech is OK. Diresta explains her position in part by saying, "taking down terrorist propaganda, minimizing bad information during a pandemic, handling a litany of rumors and lies about election theft." And there lies the rub. While she brings the reader in to her circle of influence by talking about terrorists such as ISIS or white supremacists, things that we all despise, she throws in anyone who might question the science or point out abnormalities in the election process. In her mind of course, anything that threatens the power of those she supports needs to be silenced. It is a tactic that we have seen the progressive left use successfully.

It is on this last point, selective censorship, that true conservatives differ with not only the progressives but also some on our side of the aisle. Free speech of all kinds needs to be allowed. A free society cannot be maintained in the long run if voices of any kind are silenced. To be clear, I am not saying that people should be free of the consequences of their statements, only that they should be allowed to make them.

Censoring voices we do not like, for whatever reason, drives those voices underground. That makes it much more difficult to identify and deal with terrorist groups, for example. We then have to spend much more time and resources trying to identify them and as we have learned from history, it gives them more time to organize their terrorist activities and carry out their evil plans successfully.

Even silencing those who are not necessarily calling for action that we would deem as terroristic but that we would more appropriately called hate speech does not give us the chance to provide a counter argument. That lack of counter argument does not provide people with a different perspective and allows the person spewing the hate speech to win people over to his side or his argument. It does not allow us to educate our children as to why the person is wrong.

But more importantly and addressing directly the last part of Diresta's statement, we can't be prevented from questioning authority. As I have said before, one of the Undeniable Truths of Life in My World Is that questioning everything is the only reason the human species is not still living in the Stone Age. It is the only reason that we have shed the yoke of tyranny and built free societies. I have no doubt that she and her compatriots would be screaming bloody murder if Donald Trump was the one deciding whose voices should be silenced.

If you think my position would lead to hurt feelings or difficult conversations, you are right. If that makes you uncomfortable, good. If you are not uncomfortable when you're exposed to hate speech, bigotry, or terrorism, then our country is in trouble. And don't forget, when we can address this type of speech with facts, we will win the argument. And their voices, while not silenced, will be muted.

And one last thought, or maybe I should say a warning, if this concept makes you uncomfortable, just wait for my column next week.