If someone chooses to click on a link and read a story...

who is anyone to tell them that they are not entitled or should not be viewing that information?

To be clear, I am not talking about a link that is offering to take someone to child porn or a link to a malicious site which is intending to download viruses to that person's computer. I am talking about a link to a story about something that is describing something actually happening in the world.

Now obviously in the hyper-aggressive woke cancel culture, there are people who do want to control what others are exposed to and are able to see. These people do not work in the old fashioned way of actually making an argument or otherwise attempting discrediting something they believe to be misleading or false. They seemly want to bully their way into controlling what arguments are or can be made. If they disagree with a line of thinking, that line of thinking should go away.

This week, attorney Sidney Powell dropped more election lawsuits. Much of what Sidney Powell has been suggesting would make for better reading in a fiction novel than a lawsuit. But Powell also brings up legitimate issues as well. Legal experts much smarter than I believe that she has raised enough legal  questions with enough affidavits, that under normal circumstances would have allowed portions of these cases to make at least make it to discovery. The problem with election lawsuits is that there is no time for discovery. You either bring proof up front or go home.

In a normal case, this pleading would be enough to get into the discovery phase, at which point documents and systems could be inspected, and more testimony taken. The problem here is that we have a short deadline until the electoral college process kicks in, and there’s not enough time. 

The other thing worth noting is that much of the mockery of Powell has been undeserved. She has evidence, a lot of evidence, that this was a severely problematic election. If she had months or years to pursue this through the normal litigation methods, maybe she would prove that what was possible actually happened. Her biggest enemy at this point is the calendar. (link)

All that being said, if you attempted to click on a link that would take you to Sidney Powell's lawsuits or stories about these lawsuits, your social media outlets (Facebook and Twitter) were blocking them. This was done under the guise that the links might be unsafe. (You can see picture above for what happened in Twitter if you attempted to view a link taking you to the actual PDF of the lawsuit). Perhaps the truth (that Twitter is censoring information they don't like) is a bridge too far for even them to openly admit. After all, how can an election lawsuit not be considered "real" or otherwise "news". Even the worst lawsuit in the history of legal proceedings would still be news (if only for the fact that it was bad). 

Moreover, Powell's Twitter account was also suspended, as were two different elected members of "Congress" who have also been advocates of protesting or contesting the 2020 election. Apparently the idea of actually protesting or contesting an election is now grounds to have your twitter account suspended or removed.

The irony is that the media spent three years chasing the concept that President Trump was a Russian asset who worked with Vladimir Putin to steal an election. No place was more home to the craziest of the theories than Twitter. To see these same people so arrogant and self absorbed, as they hypocritically attack everyone and anyone who suggests the 2020 election might have had some flaws is scary. To see Twitter do the complete 180 as to what might be allowed on their site is crazy. Censorship isn't even the right word. We need to find a new word to describe this.