Not too long ago, I was having what has become a rare debate with a Trump supporter. There was a time, back during his first term, that I engaged in more of these debates. By and large, however, I found these to be pointless exercises in futility. They would add to my stress (and presumably, to the Trump fans) but achieved little more. More often than not, they would dismiss any and all facts - even when proven right - as "fake news" or simply resort to personal insults.
More often than not, I would walk away thinking that the vast majority of truly loyal Trump supporters were, frankly, not actual adults. Facts did not matter. Logic did not matter. To their mind's eye, their guy was infallible, and that was all there was to it.
So I stopped bothering after a while. Really, there seemed no point to it. I kid you not by how those conversations almost always ended pretty much the same way, usually with some sort of personal insults hurled my way. No arguing with people like that.
However, it was a little different with an old college buddy. Perhaps it should come as no surprise that during college, he was known best for his anger. It seemed that he was always angry at something, or at everything, or at nothing, all at once. Given that, perhaps it is not actually all that surprising that he should come to be a Trump supporter. Apparently, Trump has that dark charisma that seems to appeal to all of those angry, outraged people.
We did not start off debating censorship directly, but this was the point where the guy started getting outraged. Sometimes, you can just tell, you know? If I recall correctly, it started with me pointing out how taking joy in anti-Trump personnel was tantamount to him rooting for censorship (actually, maybe it was about censorship right from the beginning) and he stated that this had nothing to do with censorship. Basically, I did not know what I was talking about. How is that not censorship? I pointed out that Trump was outraged by criticism from these two comedians and apparently demanded that they be taken off the air, and they were. That seems pretty clearly censorship to me. What more do you need, some cartoonish command outright mentioning the word censorship and then having a list of newly banned (or soon to be banned) people? Read between the lines, and you will see that, yes, this was a prime example of censorship.
I am almost positive that he was holding back, mostly because we were college buddies. But before long, he simply declared his credentials, having gotten a license from the FCC all of those years ago during college. It seemed that he thought that his having an old license like that validated his stated position that seeing late night comedians like Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel go was funny, while by the same token, he seemed to feel that the absence of my holding any FCC license basically made my arguments systematically invalid. This was no censorship, according to him. Plain and simple.
He was adamant that it was not censorship. He reiterated that he had an old FCC license, having done work on the radio back during the college days. A day or two later, he posted a picture of that FCC license on Facebook, without comment, and I was almost certain that it was directed at me, as further proof of his own expertise, that I did not know what I was talking about.
Despite that, my position still has not changed. Yes, it amounts to censorship, and it is still happening.
In fact, if anything, it is more alarming now than ever before.
Not long ago, Donald Trump was outraged by a reporter who released something that was compromising to the Trump administration. Trump outright suggested that this reporter, and the media company responsible for publishing it, had violated "national security" and should "go to jail."
It always seems like during times of war (at least ever since Vietnam), presidents and other authority figures use this "national security" label to attempt to silence any and all dissent. Remember, the free press kept airing videos of troops being shot at and sometimes killed, or real battle and a vicious war. All of that contributed to increased press censorship during major conflicts ever since. Certainly, you could not actually expect Donald Trump to be the exception to this apparently unwritten rule, right?
Well, in that spirit, Trump is apparently trying to get one journalist to go to jail for reporting something unflattering about the current war with Iran. In his own words, according to a recent article in People by Joseph Konig (see link below):
“We're going to go to the media company that released it, and we're going to say, ‘national security, give it up or go to jail,' " Trump said of his plan to identify the military leaker
Wonder if my friend would also agree that this technically does not qualify as censorship. It sure appears to be censorship to my eyes.
Trump Says Journalist Will 'Go to Jail' for Reporting on Rescue Operations Involving U.S. Airmen Shot Down Over Iran by Joseph Konig Published on April 6, 2026:
“We're going to go to the media company that released it, and we're going to say, ‘national security, give it up or go to jail,' "
https://people.com/trump-threatens-journalist-jail-us-rescue-missions-11943975
Trump Says Journalist Will 'Go to Jail' for Reporting on U.S. Rescue Operation in Iran
No comments:
Post a Comment