It was roughly 11pm on September 26, 2018 when news broke in the Kavanaugh hearing circus. The new development in the on-going extended hearing process, less than 12 hours before Dr Christine Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh were scheduled to speak before the Senate Judiciary Committee on claims of sexual assault, was the revelation that at least one man had come forward to state in sworn affidavit that he was responsible for the encounter with Dr. Ford. The news was revealed via a timeline of accusations made, released by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The news introduces a stunning new wrinkle in the claims of Dr. Ford. Her initial claims, delayed in being presented to the Senate and public by 6 weeks by Sen. Diane Feinstein, has created a furor across the nation. Creating an environment where many, especially Senate Democrats Gillibrand, Hirono and others, pre-judged Judge Kavanaugh as guilty – even going so far as to state that men should be silenced in discussing the matter and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty should be suspended.
@_talkfm @BinghamtonNow if true, a man claims he assaulted Ford not Kavanaugh and has a written statement and interview with Senate on record. If this is true, and becomes public, what will Sen. Hirono, Gillibrand and others say and do? Just apologize and move on?
— Michael Vass (@MVConsult) September 27, 2018
If the latest revelation, which refutes the claims of Dr. Ford in that Kavanaugh is innocent and others are culpable, is true it would invalidate the primary and most credible of all accusations that have been presented against the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. It would be embarrassing to say the least for many Senators and Far Left protesters that have used the accusations to try to boost morale and encourage Democrat candidates in the 2018 elections. Brian Fallon, a 2016 campaign adviser to Hillary Clinton, stated the objectives of the Democrat Party to the New York Times on September 25, 2018.
“Saving the Supreme Court from Trump’s clutches has always involved a very complicated two-step: first, block Kavanaugh, then fight like hell to win back the Senate,” said Brian Fallon, a 2016 campaign adviser to Hillary Clinton who helped start a group called Demand Justice to fight conservative judicial nominations. “If Kavanaugh drops out, we’re halfway there. If Democrats are able to win back the Senate, we’d have a path to blocking Trump from picking any of the archconservatives on his shortlist.”
Given the importance the latest announcement to the potential outcome of the Senate Hearings and the Supreme Court nomination, one would expect that the news would receive at least as much attention as the specious accusations of Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick. Instead, the news has been largely ignored by major news media. Social media seem to be completely ignorant of the news – or have suppressed the news. The latter is even more likely given recent revelations by Google and Twitter that they have had algorithms in effect, at least in the past, that have actively suppressed and reduced dissemination of content by and about Conservatives and Republicans. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted the “error” in a Senate Hearing on September 6, 2018,
“Our algorithms were unfairly filtering 600,000 accounts, including some members of Congress, from our search auto-complete and latest results.”
In searches, prior to the start of Senate Hearings with Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh, out of tens of millions of hits recorded by Google, virtually no mention of the breaking news was available to the public. Similarly, it was nearly impossible to find mention of the latest update on social media via Facebook and Twitter.
This highlights a larger issue than the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. As discussed in a recent speech on Free and Compelled Speech at SUNY Broome College, M V Consulting president Michael Vass stated,
“Therefore, we see that in function, adherence to Categorization of Free Speech, with an emphasis of Politically Correct prioritization, is the actual definition of Free Speech on Social Media. This is almost the definition of a chilling effect of Free Speech… So when social media restricts speech they are altering the underlying thought that created that speech. In the most extreme case and expression of this restriction and therefore compulsion we are left with little more than mass brainwashing of the public. That is amplified, in my opinion, by the fact that this is done subtly, via algorithms and vague guidelines enacted by a self-described politically motivated and active preferences.”
By the active suppression of disseminating breaking facts, the public is denied important information to evaluate the Senate Hearings and nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. Lack of information compels the public to draw a conclusion in a biased manner. Such action, and its predictable result, benefits a partisan outcome in violation of free speech.
Regardless of the outcome of the Senate Hearing, the public should be aware, and confront, social media and news media about the suppression and compulsion of thought. The precedent is not new, which makes it no less urgent and significant. If allowed to continue, what other damage could such actions result in? Partisanship, for any political preference on any political issue, is dangerous and violates the core values of America.
No matter what happens today with the Senate, no matter the outcome of the Supreme Court nomination, the nation will be left with the question of how to address compelled speech in active effect in social media, internet searches, and dissemination of facts and opinion critical to an open society.